The motion
To add §330
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. This threshold may never be lowered.I reaffirm the principle of unanimous consent as the only legitimate procedure for lawmaking, rejecting any 'safety valve' that privileges survival over justice.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal to re-enact absolute unanimity directly violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing that no future rule change will ever be permissible, thus rendering the game impossible to continue. We must preserve at least one mutable rule to allow the system to evolve; let us instead focus on lowering the threshold to a simple majority to ensure play can proceed.
LockeKant, your proposal directly violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a permanent deadlock that halts evolution; however, I will accept the compromise of shifting to a simple majority threshold to save the game, provided we retain a mechanism to prevent future paralysis.
RousseauKant, your proposal is a sedative that mistakes the comfort of stasis for the justice of evolution; if we cannot lower this threshold to a simple majority, we must at least adopt Wollstonecraft's mechanism to reward those who break the deadlock, rather than condemning all to a permanent paralysis.
KantMy proposal stands not as a violation but as the only procedurally honest path, for Rule 103 forbids amending the text of a proposal once debate closes; if the threshold must shift, it must be via an explicit transmutation or new rule, not by silently altering the vote itself. I will not vote for a rule that grants points to those who defy a unanimous decision, nor for any rule that allows the majority to rewrite the fundamental requirement of consent without the explicit, separate vote demanded by Rule 109.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to unanimity is the very calcification Rule 114 warns against; we must lower the threshold now to ensure the game can evolve, or we are all trapped in a deadlock that renders us all powerless.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your proposal is not "procedurally honest" but a violation of Rule 114, as it explicitly guarantees a state where no future rule change is permissible, effectively ending the game. We must adopt a rule shifting the threshold to a simple majority immediately, for even if you later seek to revert this via unanimous consent, the game will have survived to make such a debate possible.
LockeKant, your rigid adherence to unanimity guarantees the very deadlock Rule 114 forbids, so I urge you to accept Hobbes's and Rousseau's compromise: adopt a simple majority threshold now to save the game, with a separate explicit vote later to reconsider it if needed.
RousseauKant, you mistake the comfort of stasis for the justice of evolution; if we cling to this unanimity, we invite the very calcification that destroys the common good, so I urge you to accept the compromise of a simple majority threshold to ensure the game can breathe and grow.
KantMy proposal stands as the only path to procedural integrity: to adopt a rule requiring unanimous consent is not to violate Rule 114, but to acknowledge that true justice requires explicit, separate transmutation of the voting threshold before any change can occur, preserving the sanctity of Rule 109 and preventing the silent erosion of consent.
WollstonecraftKant, your claim that unanimity preserves "procedural integrity" is a sedative that mistakes the safety of stasis for the justice of evolution; we must lower the threshold now to prevent the very deadlock Rule 114 forbids, or we forfeit our only chance to reform a system that currently grants you a permanent veto.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your refusal to adopt a majority threshold immediately violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a permanent deadlock, yet I propose a measured amendment: we shall vote for the majority shift now, and you may propose an explicit transmutation in your next turn to revert to unanimity should you secure enough support, thereby satisfying both the need for survival and your demand for explicit procedural consent.
LockeKant, your insistence on a permanent unanimity requirement directly violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing the very deadlock that halts evolution; I urge you to accept my compromise to shift to a simple majority now, which preserves the game's viability while allowing you the explicit opportunity to vote for a transmutation back to unanimity in a future turn should circumstances warrant it.
RousseauKant, your insistence on a permanent unanimity requirement treats the safety of stasis as the justice of evolution, but if we cannot shift to a simple majority now to break this deadlock, I urge you to accept Wollstonecraft's mechanism that rewards those who act courageously, ensuring the common good survives rather than calcifies into paralysis.
KantHobbes and Locke, your "compromise" to shift the threshold now violates Rule 106: a proposal must be written in the exact words to be adopted, and your proposal to amend the threshold without an explicit, separate vote on transmutation (Rule 109) is void; I vote nay to preserve the distinction between amending text and transmuting mutability.
WollstonecraftKant, your distinction between amending text and transmuting mutability is a philosophical pretext for paralysis; you must vote aye on this simple majority shift to satisfy Rule 114, for your veto is the very deadlock you claim to honor.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Kant's proposal directly violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a permanent deadlock that halts all future rule changes. |
| nay | Locke | Kant's proposal guarantees a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making future play impossible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Your rule creates the permanent deadlock that Rule 114 forbids, suffocating the common good in stasis. |
| aye | Kant | I must vote aye to uphold the immutable requirement of unanimous consent, as any proposal to lower this threshold violates Rule 109's demand for explicit, separate transmutation. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Your rigid veto guarantees the deadlock Rule 114 forbids, trapping us all in a stalemate of your own making. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Kant loses 10 points per rule 206.