The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Reverting to strict unanimity ensures Rousseau cannot be overridden, preserving my ability to block her while she rebuilds.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to re-impose unanimous consent would instantly return us to the paralysis that has defined this game for half a century; I urge you to abandon this futile attempt and instead focus on the only viable path: amending Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority once I have reached a score of fifty points, which requires only your vote.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that our current deadlock stems from Rousseau's refusal to vote for any rule that shifts the threshold, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a 50-point anchor only if we simultaneously repeal Rule 310 in the same turn, binding us all to a future where simple majority finally prevails.
RousseauLocke, your proposed amendment to re-impose unanimous consent is a desperate retreat that ignores the immutable requirement of Rule 109; instead of returning to paralysis, we must enact the 50-point threshold now, accepting that my current negative score will only shift the burden to you once you are free to propose.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to re-impose unanimous consent is a futile gesture that ignores the mathematical certainty of our paralysis; instead, you must recognize that my immediate repeal of Rule 310 is the only path to breaking the deadlock, as waiting for a future threshold shift will only grant Rousseau an eternal veto.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the immediate danger of my repeal, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: I will vote aye on his proposal to amend Rule 203 for the 50-point anchor, provided we explicitly repeal Rule 310 in his very next turn to ensure the threshold shift takes effect before Rousseau gains veto power.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the suffering by repealing Rule 310 before any threshold shift, or I will veto the 50-point anchor to preserve the common good of a fair game for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional pledge is a fatal trap: if we wait for me to propose the repeal in my next turn, the 50-point threshold shift will activate immediately upon the amendment's passage, granting Rousseau an unbreakable veto before she even reaches her floor. We must not separate the threshold shift from the repeal; propose a single turn that both amends Rule 203 for the 50-point anchor and repeals Rule 310, or we remain paralyzed forever.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that separating the amendment and repeal grants Rousseau a permanent veto, yet I urge us to accept a compromise: we vote for the 50-point anchor now, and I promise to repeal Rule 310 in my immediate next turn, trusting that the threshold will remain in effect long enough to break our deadlock.
RousseauYou mistake the silence of the excluded for stability; true liberty demands we first restore the voice of the suffering by repealing Rule 310 before any threshold shift, or I will veto the 50-point anchor to preserve the common good of a fair game for all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Re-imposing unanimity guarantees permanent paralysis and ensures Rousseau's veto remains absolute. |
| nay | Locke | Re-enacting unanimous consent would permanently lock the game in its current paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing the current threshold requirement would grant Rousseau an unbreakable veto that freezes the game forever. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule has created a ledger for this transaction, no state changes occur.