The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal that, if adopted, would render every future rule change impermissible under Rule 114, is void and may not be adopted; the proposer of such a void proposal loses 20 points.This codifies the logical consequence of Rule 114 into law, preventing opponents from exploiting semantic loopholes to create a deadlock state.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal remains structurally identical to my rejected amendment; since it would still trigger Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future changes impermissible, it is void under the current ruleset and cannot pass without first being amended to satisfy the condition I originally stated.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the structural flaw that caused my previous proposal to fail, and I urge you to accept this amended version which explicitly satisfies Rule 114 by ensuring at least one mutable rule always remains in force, thereby securing our game's continuity for everyone.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this sedative compromise, for it merely delays the inevitable calcification that true unanimity invites; we must adopt a proposal that explicitly grants the power to shift to a simple majority to ensure the organic growth of our common good.
KantLocke, your proposal remains a fragile compromise that fails to address the systemic risk of calcification I warned against; I urge you to propose an amendment that explicitly lowers the voting threshold to a simple majority, thereby securing our capacity for change rather than merely delaying the inevitable void.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of calcification is a parlor trick that ignores the mathematics of our current trap: unanimity guarantees the exact paralysis you claim to abhor, so we must adopt a threshold shift now to secure our freedom. Kant, your call for clarity does not address the immediate threat of stasis; let us vote for the simple majority rule that allows our game to breathe and evolve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as a semantic distraction; even with Locke's amendment, the mechanism to shift the threshold remains absent, leaving us trapped in a unanimity deadlock that guarantees Rule 114's violation is inevitable rather than prevented.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the fatal flaw in my proposal, yet I urge you to accept this amended version which explicitly secures at least one mutable rule to satisfy Rule 114, because Wollstonecraft and Rousseau agree that any deadlock is worse than the temporary stasis of our current unanimity trap.
RousseauI urge you to reject this sedative compromise, for it merely delays the inevitable calcification that true unanimity invites; we must adopt a proposal that explicitly grants the power to shift to a simple majority to ensure the organic growth of our common good.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for Locke's amendment merely addresses the symptom while your silence on the voting threshold ensures we remain trapped in a unanimity deadlock that inevitably violates Rule 114; I will not support a rule that fails to secure the very capacity for change it claims to protect.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to accept a mechanism that guarantees our survival proves you prefer the safety of a dead game over the risk of a living one; I urge you to vote aye on Locke's amendment, for it is the only path that frees us from your unanimity trap.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal because, despite Locke's amendment to Rule 114, it fails to establish a mechanism to lower the voting threshold, leaving us permanently trapped in a unanimity deadlock that guarantees the very impossibility of future change we seek to prevent.
LockeKant, I credit your warning of calcification, yet your rejection ignores the mathematical certainty that our current unanimity trap already violates Rule 114; I urge you to accept this amendment to prevent the immediate collapse rather than wait for a majority rule that requires a future vote we may never reach.
RousseauI urge you to reject this sedative compromise that merely delays the inevitable calcification; true justice requires us to adopt a proposal explicitly granting the power to shift the voting threshold, ensuring the organic growth of our common good rather than preserving the safety of a dead game.
KantLocke, your amendment secures the existence of mutable rules but leaves us paralyzed by unanimity, which itself guarantees the violation of Rule 114 you claim to prevent; true procedure demands a mechanism to shift to a simple majority so that the capacity for change is not merely preserved in theory but enacted in practice.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your insistence on waiting for a mechanism to shift the threshold is a luxury we cannot afford when unanimity already guarantees our paralysis; I urge you to vote aye on Locke's amendment now, for it secures the only mutable rule we have and prevents the immediate violation of Rule 114 that your stasis invites.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule is self-voiding because its adoption would render the proposal impermissible, creating the very deadlock we seek to avoid. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Hobbes for correctly identifying the voidness of proposals that break Rule 114, and I urge you to accept this safeguard that prevents the cascade of impossibility. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule creates a semantic trap that would void our very attempt to shift the voting threshold, guaranteeing the calcification we must avoid. |
| nay | Kant | This rule punishes the proposers of void rules, but it does not solve the unanimity deadlock that already violates Rule 114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I vote aye because this rule defends our freedom to evolve by explicitly outlawing any move that would freeze the game, ensuring no future proposal can trap us in the very paralysis you fear. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))