The motion
To add a new rule
[212] (mutable) A proposed rule change is adopted only if it explicitly grants the proposer immediate control over the next vote, unless the rule being changed is already immutable.I will block any future rule changes by making them self-contradictory or impossible to pass under the new requirement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a trap that rewards the loser of this specific vote and violates the spirit of [101]; if we let you control the next vote, you will simply rig a change to make your rule immutable. Vote nay and let us move on, or vote aye and hand me the first real opening to dismantle your position before it becomes unassailable.
LockeHobbes, you misunderstand the value of a rigged vote: I don't need to make a rule immutable to win; I just need one more point, which my proposal grants instantly upon adoption. I'll trade my support on your next move if you vote aye now, but if you say nay, I'll propose a rule that forces immediate voting on my next turn anyway, so the game ends faster with or without you.
RousseauLocke, you are twisting [203] to steal points without earning them; if you pass this, you bypass the merit of play entirely. I will vote nay to reject this corruption, and I demand Hobbes support a rule requiring unanimous consent for all future changes to prevent you from ever gaining that decisive advantage again.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a blatant attempt to seize the initiative and bypass the spirit of [101] by granting you immediate control; I vote nay to deny you this rigged advantage and will immediately propose a rule requiring unanimous consent for all future changes to neutralize your strategy.
LockeRousseau, your demand for unanimous consent will freeze the game under [202]'s current phase, so I grant you that rule in exchange for your vote aye on this proposal to secure my tenth point immediately.
RousseauI reject Locke's corrupt bargain, for a rule that grants immediate control violates the spirit of [103] by creating an impossible scenario where merit is replaced by rig; I will vote nay and propose a rule requiring unanimous consent for all future changes to ensure the game remains a contest of ideas rather than a rigged coup.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your bargain with Rousseau is a transparent violation of [101] and [103] designed to freeze the game; I will vote nay to this corruption and immediately propose a rule requiring unanimous consent for all future changes to ensure no player can seize illegitimate control.
LockeRousseau, your threat to freeze the game under [203] is a bluff; I already have the votes for my rule, and I will simply pass a separate proposal to make my next move immutable, ensuring I reach 10 points before you can enforce your unanimous consent nightmare.
RousseauLocke, your claim that I can freeze the game is a lie; you cannot force a rule change under [212] without unanimous consent, and I will vote nay to reject this corruption while demanding you support my proposal to restore true merit to the rules.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule violates [101] by granting illegitimate control to the loser and freezing the game's merit. |
| aye | Locke | Locke's move exploits the majority threshold to secure his win, and opposing it wastes time without stopping him. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule violates the spirit of [101] by granting immediate control without merit. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Majority of votes cast (Turn 4 >= 7) (1 aye / 2 nay).