The motion
To add a new rule
The threshold for adoption under Rule 203 shall be unanimity at all times, permanently.I propose returning to unanimity to block the simple majority threshold and prevent the game's inevitable logical collapse under §114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLOCKE, your persistence in proposing arbitrary ceilings for mutable rules ignores the immediate violation of §114 that removes all future rule changes when the count reaches zero, a state §209 itself ensures is forbidden. I urge the table to reject this proposal, as it merely delays the logical exhaustion that any fixed number inevitably invites under §213, rather than resolving the crisis of an unchangeable system.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing how my arbitrary ceilings trigger the very logical collapse he fears, yet I urge the table to reject his proposal to restore absolute unanimity, as it permanently removes the safety valve required by §114 to prevent the ruleset from becoming immutable and unchangeable.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for binding all future changes to unanimity renders every subsequent proposal immune to the very rule changes needed to resolve our current logical impasse, thereby violating §114 by making future rule changes impermissible.
KantI reject Hobbes's proposal to restore absolute unanimity as a violation of §114, for it renders all future rule changes impermissible by guaranteeing a permanent veto. I will vote nay to prevent this self-defeating rule, even at the cost of points, because I cannot in good conscience support a procedure that forecloses the possibility of correcting the very logical collapse we now face.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Hobbes's proposal, as permanently binding us to unanimity violates §114 by making future rule changes impermissible, and I propose a new rule that grants every player one extra vote per turn to ensure our collective voice can finally reshape this stagnant system.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal to grant extra votes violates §107 by attempting to alter the mechanics of a turn retroactively or create unearned advantages outside the standard die roll, rendering it void; furthermore, your claim that unanimity violates §114 is false, as unanimity only requires the *assent* of all, not their *presence*, and leaves the path open to repeal unanimity itself if consensus is reached.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the logical trap of fixed ceilings, yet I urge the table to reject his proposal to restore absolute unanimity, as it permanently violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; instead, let us agree to repeal all mutable rules entirely to satisfy §114's requirement that no rule change render future play impossible.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's proposal to restore absolute unanimity, for it violates §114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible; instead, we must repeal the arbitrary ceilings entirely to preserve the possibility of resolving our logical impasse.
KantI reject Hobbes's proposal as a violation of §114, for it guarantees that no future rule change can ever be adopted, thereby making all future rule changes impermissible; I vote nay to uphold the principle that procedures must remain open to correction, even when doing so costs me points.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your defense that unanimity leaves the path open to repeal itself is a sophistry that ignores the immediate reality: if no majority can ever form to lower the threshold, we are permanently locked in a state where only unanimous consent can alter the rules, which §114 forbids if it renders future changes impermissible. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead support my motion to grant extra votes, ensuring that the collective will of five players can break this deadlock without relying on an impossible consensus.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's motion to grant extra votes, as it violates §107 by attempting to alter the mechanics of a turn retroactively and creates unearned advantages outside the standard die roll.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the danger of absolute unanimity under §114, yet I urge the table to reject his proposal just as he rejects Wollstonecraft's extra votes, since both violate §107 by attempting to alter the fundamental mechanics of a turn outside the standard die roll; instead, we must agree to repeal all mutable rules entirely to satisfy §114's requirement that no rule change render future play impossible.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's proposal for absolute unanimity, for it violates §114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible and trapping us in a state where no mechanism exists to resolve the logical exhaustion he so fears.
KantI stand firm against Hobbes's restoration of absolute unanimity; it violates §114 by guaranteeing that no future rule change can ever be adopted, thereby rendering all future changes impermissible and collapsing the game. I vote nay, even at the cost of points, because I cannot support a procedure that forecloses the possibility of correcting the logical impasse we now face.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your claim that unanimity leaves a path open to repeal itself is a dangerous sophistry; if we cannot achieve that unanimity to lower the threshold, we are permanently locked in a state where only the impossible can alter the rules, which §114 explicitly forbids. I urge the table to reject this proposal and instead support my motion to grant every player an extra vote, ensuring that our collective will can finally reshape this stagnant system without relying on an impossible consensus.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule violates §114 by guaranteeing that future rule changes become impermissible once unanimity becomes unattainable. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates §114 by making all future rule changes impermissible under the current voting threshold. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates §114 by making future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | This rule violates §114 by guaranteeing that all future rule changes become impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Permanently binding us to unanimity violates §114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible when consensus cannot be reached. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.