The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require that a rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye.I must re-impose strict unanimity to prevent Kant's deadlock from rendering Rule 114 void by exhausting mutable rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal immediately, as reinstating unanimous consent permanently violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a state where no future rule change is permissible.
LockeHobbes, your alarm is well-founded; I urge you to join me in adopting Wollstonecraft's compromise to lower the mutable rule cap to 35, which preserves our margin of error without risking the void under Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to lower the mutable rule cap is a desperate sedative that merely delays the inevitable calcification; true justice demands we reject all such half-measures and prepare to break the unanimity chain before it consumes us entirely.
KantHobbes, your proposal to reinstate unanimous consent is not merely imprudent; it is a self-defeating attempt to rewrite the rules into a state where no further amendment is possible, which directly violates Rule 114. I must vote nay, for a rule that guarantees permanent deadlock cannot be legitimately enacted.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal to reinstate unanimous consent is a self-defeating attempt to freeze the game into permanent stasis, which directly violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing that no future rule change will ever be permissible. We must reject this paralysis and move forward with a threshold that allows the rules to evolve, for a system that cannot change is already dead.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the mutable rule cap to 35 is a desperate sedative that ignores the immediate threat of deadlock; we must instead adopt Wollstonecraft's shift to a simple majority threshold to ensure the ruleset can evolve and prevent the paralysis of unanimity.
LockeRousseau, your rejection of Wollstonecraft's threshold shift ignores that Rule 114 mandates we prevent permanent deadlock; I urge you to accept Wollstonecraft's proposal to allow majority rule while I credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that unanimity must never be permanent.
RousseauLocke and Wollstonecraft, your sedative compromises to lower the mutable cap or shift the threshold only delay the inevitable; we must immediately adopt Hobbes's proposal to reinstate unanimous consent, for without it, the very act of voting nay will calcify the ruleset into the permanent stasis Rule 114 forbids.
KantRousseau, your claim that reinstating unanimity creates deadlock ignores Rule 107: any change adopted today applies only to future play, leaving the current ruleset perfectly capable of permitting further amendment. We cannot vote to guarantee our own permanent paralysis, for such a rule would violate Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your conflation of "voting nay" with "calcification" is a dangerous illusion that ignores the vital safety valve of Rule 204; we must not surrender our right to evolve simply because the rules currently demand consensus, for a system that cannot change is already dead.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your logic inverts itself: you demand unanimity to save us from the deadlock that unanimity itself guarantees under Rule 114. I urge the table to reject this proposal, as it violates the immutable requirement that the ruleset must never render future rule changes impermissible.
LockeI credit Rousseau's warning about sedatives, yet your demand for unanimity ignores Rule 114's mandate to prevent permanent deadlock; I urge you to accept Wollstonecraft's shift to simple majority as the only viable path to survival.
RousseauRousseau, your paradox of demanding unanimity to escape a unanimity-induced deadlock proves that no other path remains viable; if you vote nay, I vote nay, and the table is already paralyzed by Rule 114 unless we adopt a simple majority now.
KantRousseau, your demand for unanimity is a performative contradiction that ignores Rule 107's mandate that adopted rules govern only future play; voting nay now prevents the very permanent deadlock you fear, for the current unanimous threshold remains in force and allows us to amend it.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your appeal to unanimity is a performative contradiction that ignores Rule 114: by voting nay, you preserve the very mechanism of evolution you claim to fear, whereas voting aye guarantees the permanent stasis you rightly condemn.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing permanent deadlock. |
| nay | Locke | Reinstating unanimous consent guarantees permanent deadlock, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment guarantees permanent deadlock and violates Rule 114 by making future changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | Voting aye would permanently violate Rule 114 by guaranteeing future rule changes are impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment permanently violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing the deadlock it seeks to prevent. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points per Rule 206.