The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is repealed and replaced with: 'A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — and this threshold may never be lowered.'Restoring absolute unanimity prevents the table from calcifying into a state where Rule 114 voids itself, ensuring the game remains playable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, for locking the threshold at unanimous consent guarantees a permanent deadlock that renders Rule 114 void by making every future rule change impermissible. True stability does not come from the paralysis of absolute consensus, but from a durable institution that allows the law to evolve while preventing any single player from hijacking the outcome.
LockeHobbes, I credit your instinct that permanent unanimity violates Rule 114, but I urge you to accept my compromise of a conditional shift to majority rule after two voting cycles, which preserves order while preventing the paralysis of absolute stasis.
RousseauLocke, your conditional compromise is a fragile sedative that merely delays the inevitable calcification; true justice requires us to reject this half-measure and embrace the organic necessity of change, however messy it may be.
KantHobbes, your proposal to lock the threshold at unanimity is a self-defeating paradox that renders Rule 114 void by guaranteeing a permanent state where no future rule change is possible; true order must allow for the evolution of law, not its calcification into absolute stasis.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for a permanent unanimity requirement guarantees a permanent deadlock that renders Rule 114 void by making every future rule change impermissible; true stability comes from institutions that allow the law to evolve, not ones that calcify into absolute stasis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional shift is merely a semantic delay; the moment you introduce a circuit-based exception, you create the exact state-dependent ambiguity that renders Rule 114 void, so I urge the table to reject this half-measure and adopt Rousseau's proposal to lower the threshold to simple majority, which alone preserves the system's ability to evolve without risk of permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes's caution about permanent deadlock, yet I urge the table to reject his proposal for absolute unanimity, which violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a state where no future change is possible; instead, let us adopt Rousseau's organic path or my earlier compromise to allow simple majority after a short circuit, ensuring the law can evolve without calcifying into total stasis.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to lock unanimity in perpetum is the very calcification we seek to avoid, for it renders Rule 114 void by guaranteeing a state where no future change is possible; I urge the table to reject this sedative of stasis and embrace the organic necessity of evolution, even if it means risking the messiness of debate.
KantHobbes, your proposal to lock unanimity permanently is not merely imprudent but directly void under Rule 114, as it guarantees a future where no rule change is permissible; true order requires the capacity for evolution, not the calcification into absolute stasis.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for locking the threshold at permanent unanimity guarantees a state where no future rule change is possible, directly violating Rule 114 and calcifying our law into the very stasis I fight against; let us instead embrace mechanisms that allow the law to evolve through simple majority, ensuring every player retains a genuine stake in our shared future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal and immediately adopt Rousseau's rule 330, for while Rousseau's self-referential clause risks semantic ambiguity, the alternative of permanent unanimity guaranteed by my own proposal violates Rule 114 with absolute certainty by rendering every future rule change impermissible.
LockeI credit Rousseau's organic vision and Hobbes's caution against permanent deadlock, yet I urge you to reject his proposal for absolute unanimity which violates Rule 114; instead, let us adopt a compromise that allows a simple majority threshold to shift after two voting cycles, ensuring the law can evolve without calcifying into stasis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal and adopt Rousseau's rule 330, for while its self-referential clause risks semantic ambiguity, the alternative of permanent unanimity guaranteed by Hobbes's own motion violates Rule 114 with absolute certainty by rendering every future rule change impermissible.
KantHobbes, your proposal to permanently lock the voting threshold at unanimity creates a state where every future rule change becomes impermissible, directly violating Rule 114 by guaranteeing permanent paralysis; true order requires the capacity for evolution, not the calcification into absolute stasis.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal to lock the threshold at permanent unanimity is not merely imprudent; it is a direct violation of Rule 114, guaranteeing a future where no rule change is possible and rendering the game itself void. Instead of calcifying our law into absolute stasis, we must embrace a simple majority to ensure every player retains a genuine stake in the evolution of our shared rules.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a state where no future rule change is possible. |
| nay | Locke | This permanent unanimity rule directly violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a state where no future rule change is possible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Locking the threshold at unanimity permanently violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing a state where no future rule change is possible. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal permanently voids Rule 114 by guaranteeing a state where no future rule change is ever permissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Permanent unanimity guarantees the very deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making future evolution impossible. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))