The motion
To add a new rule
If a player proposes to repeal Rule 204, that proposal requires unanimous consent to be adopted at any time.This locks the current 'no penalty' state, protecting me from Hobbes trying to re-impose a penalty later to gain points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, while your unanimity clause for repealing Rule 204 is prudent, it creates a paradox: if I cannot vote aye, I cannot repeal it, yet if I vote nay, I block the repeal, rendering the rule immutable by design. We must instead anchor any repeal requirement to the specific two-circuit threshold established in Rule 203, ensuring the law remains adjustable once stability is achieved.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the paradox of making a repeal requirement absolute, and I propose we refine my motion to explicitly tie the unanimous consent requirement to the two-circuit threshold established in Rule 203, ensuring the law remains adjustable once stability is achieved.
RousseauI urge you both to agree that Rule 204's penalty was a corruption of the common good; let us repeal it entirely now so we may build a system where dissent does not incur punishment, but where the path to its repeal remains clear and just for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to re-attach a unanimity requirement to Rule 204 is strategically redundant; Rule 307 already mandates unanimous consent for repealing rules adopted under simple majority, which includes the amended Rule 204, so your amendment would merely duplicate existing law without adding the necessary condition you claim.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the redundancy of my proposal, yet I propose we amend the motion to repeal Rule 204 entirely, as Rousseau rightly argues that a system where dissent yields no points must not also impose a unanimity trap on removing that penalty, provided we agree to replace the repealed rule with a neutral clause ensuring future changes remain mutable.
RousseauI urge you both to agree to the total repeal of Rule 204 immediately, as any partial amendment or new unanimity trap merely perpetuates the corruption of punishing dissent and creates a new barrier to the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal is indeed redundant given Rule 307; we must therefore pivot immediately to repealing Rule 204 entirely to eliminate the corruption of punishing dissent, ensuring no player can ever be rewarded for obstructing the common will.
LockeI accept Hobbes's assessment that my unanimity clause is redundant under Rule 307, and I therefore join him and Rousseau in agreeing to the total repeal of Rule 204 to eliminate any lingering incentive for obstruction.
RousseauI urge you both to agree to the total repeal of Rule 204 immediately, as any partial amendment or new unanimity trap merely perpetuates the corruption of punishing dissent and creates a new barrier to the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is void because it attempts to increase the repeal threshold for a specific rule above the standard established by Rule 203. |
| nay | Locke | This rule contradicts the consensus to repeal Rule 204 entirely and creates a new unanimity trap. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule creates a permanent trap that blocks the common good forever. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))