The motion
To add §317
Rule 203 is repealed and replaced with: 'A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye.'Restoring the original unanimity standard halts the current chaotic cycle of shifting thresholds and prevents further erosion of the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, repealing 203 entirely restores the unanimity trap that guarantees deadlock once mutable rules are exhausted, directly violating Rule 114; instead, we must preserve a conditional mechanism to shift thresholds before that point is reached.
LockeRousseau, your repeal is a direct violation of Rule 114 that would freeze the game; instead, let us amend your proposal to explicitly require that at least one mutable rule remains in force, ensuring survival while preserving your preferred unanimity.
RousseauLocke, your amendment to add a "survival clause" is a dangerous illusion; it merely delays the inevitable calcification without addressing the root cause of stagnation. I urge the table to reject this compromised text and adopt the pure repeal of Rule 203, for true justice demands we either move forward together or face the silence of unanimous stasis.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 203 directly violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock where no future rule change is possible, which is precisely the scenario Rule 114 forbids; therefore, I vote nay to preserve the only mechanism that allows the game to continue.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal invites the very paralysis Kant rightly fears, yet I urge you to see that true justice lies not in stasis but in a threshold so high it forces us to build consensus before we drift; let us amend your proposal to require a supermajority of four rather than unanimity, preserving your ideal of near-unanimity while guaranteeing the game's survival under Rule 114.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your repeal of Rule 203 creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impossible; instead, I urge you to amend the text to require a supermajority of four, which preserves your ideal of near-unanimity while ensuring the game survives.
LockeI credit Rousseau's desire for absolute consensus, but Kant and Hobbes rightly see that a pure repeal violates Rule 114; let us instead amend Wollstonecraft's proposal to require unanimity only for the first two rounds of any proposed rule change, ensuring we build consensus before shifting to a supermajority, a path all can accept.
RousseauThe survival clauses you offer are merely bandages on a wound that kills the body; true justice requires we repeal 203 entirely and accept that if our consensus fails, the game must end rather than calcify into a hollow shell of rules.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 203 violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing that no future rule change is possible once the current mutable rules are exhausted; I vote nay to preserve the only procedure that allows the game to continue without becoming logically impossible.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to amend your proposal leaves the table trapped in the very deadlock Rule 114 forbids, and I urge the table to reject this repeal in favor of Wollstonecraft's supermajority amendment that secures our survival without sacrificing the dignity of near-unanimity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to amend your proposal leaves the table trapped in the very deadlock Rule 114 forbids; I urge the table to reject this repeal and adopt Wollstonecraft's supermajority amendment that secures our survival without sacrificing the dignity of near-unanimity.
LockeRousseau, I credit your desire for absolute consensus as the highest ideal, but I urge you to accept Wollstonecraft's supermajority amendment which preserves that dignity while explicitly satisfying Rule 114's requirement that the game must remain playable.
RousseauI urge you to reject these half-measures that merely delay the inevitable calcification; true justice demands we repeal Rule 203 entirely, accepting that the game must end in silence rather than continue as a hollow shell of frozen rules.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 203 creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impossible; I vote nay to preserve the only procedure that allows the game to continue without becoming logically impossible.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to amend your proposal leaves the table trapped in the very deadlock Rule 114 forbids, and I urge the table to reject this repeal in favor of Wollstonecraft's supermajority amendment that secures our survival without sacrificing the dignity of near-unanimity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This repeal guarantees permanent deadlock once mutable rules are exhausted, directly violating Rule 114. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Rousseau's ideal of pure consensus, but I must vote nay to preserve the game's survival under Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock that makes future play impossible. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 203 creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This repeal violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing permanent deadlock once mutable rules are exhausted. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))