The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal fails to be adopted because it requires unanimous consent under §203 and the proposer is the only player eligible to vote aye, the proposer may immediately revise the proposal's wording to require only a simple majority vote for that specific proposal, and the vote shall be retaken under the new threshold.I break the deadlock of unanimity by allowing the proposer to lower the bar for their own motion, ensuring play continues rather than stalling.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesYour proposal creates a paradox where the rule you attempt to enforce is simultaneously impossible to pass under the very threshold it seeks to escape, violating §114 by rendering the ruleset unable to function as intended; I urge the table to reject this self-defeating construct and maintain the stability of the current voting thresholds.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying the paradox in Wollstonecraft's proposal, yet I urge the table to reject this self-defeating construct not because it fails logically, but because it wastes a turn that could be spent amending Rule 209 to a stable compromise of twenty-two mutable rules.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for allowing a single player to unilaterally lower the voting threshold for a failed motion destroys the fairness of §104 and violates the common good by letting one voice override the collective will.
KantI reject this proposal because it violates §106 by permitting a unilateral alteration of a proposal's voting threshold after the fact, and it risks triggering §114 if a player can now repeal any rule without ever reaching the threshold to enact the repeal; I urge the table to preserve the finality of the proposal text before voting.
WollstonecraftI defend this proposal not as an escape hatch for the weak, but as a necessary valve against the stagnation that threatens our game; when a proposal fails solely because the unanimity threshold is too high, the right to revise and retry ensures we do not lose a potential reform due to the mere coincidence of a single dissenting vote.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft's proposal violates §106's mandate that a proposal be written in exact words before voting, and its adoption would render future unanimous-consent proposals impossible to pass, thereby triggering §114's requirement that no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for her creative attempt to bypass unanimity, yet I urge the table to reject this mechanism because it violates §106 by altering the proposal's fundamental nature before the final vote and invites the chaos that §114 forbids.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for allowing a single player to rewrite the conditions of their own failed motion destroys the impartiality of the collective will and invites the very chaos that §114 seeks to prevent.
KantYour proposal violates §106 by allowing a unilateral alteration of the proposal's text after debate has concluded, which destroys the finality that defines a vote; I urge you to accept that a failed proposal ends the turn, and we must instead work toward a stable, unanimous rule that governs all future changes.
WollstonecraftI defend this proposal not as an escape hatch for the weak, but as a necessary valve against the stagnation that threatens our game; when a proposal fails solely because the unanimity threshold is too high, the right to revise and retry ensures we do not lose a potential reform due to the mere coincidence of a single dissenting vote.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft's mechanism violates §106 by allowing a player to alter the exact wording of a proposal after the debate is closed and the vote has failed, creating a retroactive exception that renders §203's unanimous threshold meaningless for any future unanimity-required proposal. Such instability triggers §114, as it would allow a single dissent to permanently block the very rule changes needed to lower thresholds, effectively making every unanimous proposal impossible to adopt.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft's desire to prevent stagnation, but I urge the table to reject her proposal because it violates §106 by altering a proposal's essential character after the vote, and I offer to support a stable cap of twenty-two mutable rules if we can reach consensus there.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for allowing a single player to unilaterally rewrite the conditions of a failed motion destroys the impartiality of the collective will and invites the very chaos that §114 seeks to prevent.
KantWollstonecraft's proposal violates §106 by permitting the unilateral alteration of a proposal's text after the vote has concluded, destroying the finality that defines a rule change and inviting the chaos §114 forbids; I urge the table to reject this unstable mechanism and preserve the integrity of the voting process.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal not because it fails logically, but because it wastes a turn that could be spent amending Rule 209 to a stable compromise of twenty-two mutable rules. I credit Hobbes for correctly identifying the paradox, yet I must insist that we do not abandon the collective good for the sake of a single player's desperate maneuver.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule violates §106 by allowing unilateral text changes after debate closes and triggers §114 by making unanimous-consent proposals permanently impossible to pass. |
| nay | Locke | This violates §106 by altering a proposal's exact wording after the vote and risks triggering §114 by making unanimous future changes impossible. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment destroys the finality of voting by allowing a player to unilaterally rewrite the conditions of a failed motion. |
| nay | Kant | This violates §106 by permitting unilateral alteration of a proposal's exact wording after the vote has concluded, destroying the finality required for lawful rule changes. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This maneuver wastes a turn and violates the finality required by §106 and §107. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 61 (char 60))