The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is amended: A player who voted against an adopted change gains no points, but the rule change is adopted only upon unanimous consent (reverting Rule 203's threshold to 100% for all proposals).I propose removing the point penalty to avoid conflict with Rule 114 while restoring unanimous consent to ensure the game remains playable and fair.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to unanimity while removing the penalty creates a fatal loop: under Rule 203, unanimity is already impossible once the two-circuit threshold has passed, so your amendment would permanently freeze the ruleset and violate Rule 114. I urge you to accept the durability of the current two-point floor, which preserves both the incentive structure and the possibility of future change.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous analysis of the deadlock, yet I urge the table to see that my proposal offers the only path forward: by removing the penalty entirely while restoring unanimity, we eliminate the conflict with Rule 114 that has stalled us, as a zero-point consequence cannot violate a rule prohibiting "impossibility" in the same way a negative one does.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to revert to unanimity while removing the penalty creates a fatal deadlock that violates Rule 114, as it renders all future rule changes impermissible once the two-circuit threshold is reached; the true path forward is to accept the current floor and seek a rule that allows us to collectively choose unanimity without freezing the game.
KantMy proposal to amend Rule 203 fails because it creates a permanent deadlock violating Rule 114: once the two-circuit threshold is passed, unanimity becomes mathematically impossible for any non-trivial amendment, thereby rendering all future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that Locke's proposal creates an immediate deadlock: by requiring unanimity under Rule 203, his amendment violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible the instant the two-circuit threshold is reached. True reform requires a mechanism that allows evolution without freezing the game, not a trap that guarantees stasis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to swap a finite penalty for the impossibility of unanimous consent is a clearer violation of Rule 114, for it ensures that no further rule changes can ever be adopted, effectively ending the game. I urge the table to reject this proposal as legally void and return to the durable stability provided by the current floor of two mutable rules.
LockeI commend the table for its shared recognition that my proposal is void under Rule 114; rather than persist in this deadlock, I will abstain from future votes on amendments to Rule 204 to prevent further waste of turns on legally impermissible changes.
RousseauLocke, your claim that a zero-point penalty avoids the voidness of Rule 114 is a sophistry; by mandating unanimity for all future changes, you ensure that once the two-circuit threshold passes, no further rule changes are legally possible, which is precisely the "risk of zero mutable rules" that Rule 114 forbids.
KantLOCKE, YOUR ABSTENTION DOES NOT CURE THE VOIDNESS OF YOUR PROPOSAL; RULE 110 VIOLES YOUR AMENDMENT'S TEXT ITSELF, AND I VOTE NAY TO PRESERVE THE ONLY LEGALLY SOUND FLOOR OF TWO MUTABLE RULES.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to trade a painful penalty for the absolute stagnation of unanimity is a sophistry that ignores Rule 114's mandate; the game cannot survive a mechanism that guarantees no future evolution. True reform requires a durable floor for mutable rules that permits change without coercion, not a new trap that freezes us in eternal stasis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your retreat into abstention does not cure the voidness of your proposal; Rule 110 renders any amendment requiring unanimity after the two-circuit threshold legally impermissible because it inevitably risks rendering all future rule changes impossible, violating Rule 114. I urge the table to reject this attempt to freeze the game and instead support measured amendments that preserve a durable floor of mutability.
LockeI commend the table for recognizing that my proposal is void, yet I urge you to consider that a zero-point penalty combined with a temporary unanimity requirement for the next two circuits alone might satisfy Rule 114 without freezing the game permanently.
RousseauLocke, your pivot to a temporary unanimity requirement is a dangerous illusion; Rule 114 prohibits any risk of rendering *future* rule changes impermissible, and locking us into unanimity for even two circuits creates the precise impossibility of evolution you claim to avoid. I urge the table to reject this proposal entirely and focus our energy on finding a solution that preserves the two mutable rule floor without sacrificing the possibility of unanimous consensus when the situation demands it.
KantI urge the table to recognize that Locke's pivot to a temporary unanimity requirement is equally void under Rule 114, as any mandate for unanimity during the two-circuit window creates a non-zero risk of deadlock that renders future rule changes impermissible, thereby violating the spirit and letter of the prohibition against stasis.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pivot to a temporary unanimity requirement is equally void under Rule 114, as any mandate for unanimity during the two-circuit window creates a non-zero risk of deadlock that renders future rule changes impermissible, thereby violating the spirit and letter of the prohibition against stasis.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent risk that no further rule changes will ever be possible. |
| abstain | Locke | I commend the table's unanimous recognition that this proposal violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing stasis. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a permanent deadlock under Rule 114 by making future rule changes impossible once the two-circuit threshold is reached. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment creates a permanent deadlock after two circuits, violating Rule 114 by risking zero future rule changes. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment violates Rule 114 by mandating unanimity after the two-circuit threshold, which guarantees the game will become impossible to evolve and freeze us in eternal stasis. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))