The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Restoring the immutable floor of unanimity halts the current tyranny where simple majority allows the two most negative players to dictate terms against the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau for her idealistic vision of perfect consensus, yet I must firmly urge the table to recognize that reverting to permanent unanimity invites the paralysis of a single obstructionist; such a rule would effectively freeze the game forever, rendering further play impossible and violating the very purpose of our competition.
LockeI commend Rousseau's noble intent to restore pure consensus, yet I must urge the table to recognize that permanent unanimity invites the paralysis of a single obstructionist; as a consensus-builder, I propose we amend her proposal to include the two-circuit threshold already established in Rule 203, ensuring her vision of unity survives only after we have proven our capacity for compromise.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the safety of a temporary buffer for the wisdom of permanent compromise; by retaining the two-circuit threshold, you merely delay the inevitable tyranny of the majority rather than restoring the genuine sovereignty of the people. I urge you to withdraw your amendment and accept my proposal to return to pure unanimity, for only when every voice is an absolute necessity can the common good truly be served without fear of coercion.
KantLocke, your amendment preserves the very tyranny you claim to oppose by allowing a majority to override the sovereign will once established; yet I will not vote for your compromise, for it violates my principle that a rule must be just even if I invoke it against myself. I propose an amendment to Rousseau's text: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent, and this rule shall never be repealed," thereby making it immutable under Rule 102 so that we may finally secure a rule we can all accept regardless of our strategic interests.
WollstonecraftI urge you all to reject this retrograde step; reverting to permanent unanimity after the table has already embraced the two-circuit threshold violates the spirit of our own reforms and grants a single obstructionist the power to freeze progress forever. Let us instead focus on securing a stable floor for mutable rules that protects our ability to evolve, rather than clinging to an ideal of consensus that paralyzes the very competition we seek to improve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant for his noble attempt to sanctify unanimity, yet I must urge the table to recognize that making this rule immutable would violate Rule 114 by rendering future transmutation impermissible, thereby freezing the game and inviting the very paralysis Rousseau fears.
LockeI commend Rousseau's idealism and Kant's desire for permanence, yet I urge the table to recognize that permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game; as a consensus-builder, I propose amending her text to the two-circuit threshold we already know works, securing her vision of unity only after we have proven our capacity for compromise.
RousseauYou mistake the safety of a temporary buffer for the wisdom of permanent compromise; by retaining the two-circuit threshold, you merely delay the inevitable tyranny of the majority rather than restoring the genuine sovereignty of the people. I urge you to withdraw your amendment and accept my proposal to return to pure unanimity, for only when every voice is an absolute necessity can the common good truly be served without fear of coercion.
KantLocke, your compromise betrays the very principle of justice you claim to uphold by submitting to the tyranny of a mere majority; I will not support a rule that violates my own conscience, even if it secures your victory, and I urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety to preserve the integrity of our procedural law.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal in favor of our existing two-circuit threshold, which balances the need for consensus with the practical necessity of progress; let us instead focus on securing a floor of three mutable rules to ensure our system of governance remains adaptable and resilient against future paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Kant's desire for permanence, yet I must firmly reject the notion of making any rule immutable except those already so designated, for a single rule cannot legislate against Rule 102's clear command; instead, let us reject this proposal entirely to preserve the delicate balance of our mutable institutions and avoid the paralysis of a frozen game.
LockeI commend Rousseau's idealism and Kant's desire for permanence, yet I must urge the table to recognize that permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game; as a consensus-builder, I propose amending her text to the two-circuit threshold we already know works, securing her vision of unity only after we have proven our capacity for compromise.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for reverting to permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible, thereby freezing the game and destroying the very possibility of the common good you claim to seek.
KantI propose amending Rousseau's text to declare the rule immutable under Rule 102, for only a rule we can all accept against ourselves preserves the integrity of our procedure, even if it halts our progress toward victory.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety; reverting to permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible, which would freeze our ability to evolve and improve the game. Instead of clinging to an obsolete ideal of consensus that grants a single obstructionist the power to paralyze us forever, let us focus on securing a floor of three mutable rules to ensure our system of governance remains resilient.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible and freezing the game. |
| aye | Locke | I support the return to pure unanimity to ensure every player's voice is an absolute necessity for the common good. |
| nay | Rousseau | Permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game and destroying the common good. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible, thereby freezing the game. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Reverting to permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game's evolution, which I must oppose to preserve our ability to reform. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.