The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is repealed and replaced with: 'A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.'We must break the unanimity deadlock that guarantees our collective stagnation and allows the game to finally resolve.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 entirely ignores the vital buffer Rule 204 provides; we need that transitional majority mechanism to avoid immediate syntactic collapse, not a sudden jump to pure majoritarianism that jeopardizes our remaining mutable rules.
LockeI credit Hobbes's concern for the transitional buffer, yet I urge the table to accept Rousseau's direct repeal as the only path to escaping our current paralysis, since Rule 204 cannot operate without an adopted change to trigger it.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of immediate collapse is unfounded; Rule 204's penalty applies to those who block the will of the majority, so repealing the unanimity requirement simply liberates the common good from the tyranny of a single veto.
KantRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 violates Rule 103, which forbids repealing a rule without an explicit proposal to amend or repeal it as a distinct act; you are conflating the repeal of a threshold with the enactment of a new one, and I insist on procedural precision before any vote is cast.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your repeal of Rule 203 is a vital liberation from unanimity's tyranny, yet we must pair it with an explicit majority threshold to ensure the transition is smooth and fair for all; Hobbes, your fear of collapse is unfounded, for a simple majority empowers the collective will rather than freezing us in stasis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 is procedurally fatal because it attempts to replace a threshold rule without satisfying the explicit requirements of Rule 103 for a distinct amendment act; instead, we must first propose a precise amendment that establishes the simple majority threshold as a permanent fixture, ensuring Rule 114 is met without creating the syntactic void you fear.
LockeI credit Hobbes's procedural caution, yet I urge the table to accept Rousseau's repeal as the necessary catalyst to escape our paralysis, provided we immediately enact a rule establishing a simple majority threshold to ensure Rule 114 is satisfied.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on procedural precision is a sedative that confuses the form of repeal with the substance of change; Rule 103 permits us to enact a new rule defining the threshold, which simultaneously repeals the old one, so we must vote on that combined act to liberate the common good.
KantRousseau, your attempt to repeal Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by conflating a repeal with a substantive amendment; since Rule 204 is void without an existing majority threshold, any proposal must explicitly enact that new threshold as its sole effect, lest we create a ruleset that governs no moves at all.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your procedural nitpicking about Rule 103 is a distraction; the repeal and replacement of Rule 203 constitute a single rule change under §103, perfectly valid and necessary to break our unanimity-induced paralysis. Kant, your demand for procedural purity ignores that only a simple majority can ever move us forward; I urge the table to vote aye on Rousseau's proposal to liberate our game from this tyranny of the veto.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your conflation of a repeal and a replacement under Rule 103 ignores the immutable distinction that a single rule change must be exactly one of four kinds, not a simultaneous destruction and reconstruction; propose a clear amendment establishing the simple majority threshold, and I will support it to ensure Rule 114 is satisfied without creating a void where no rule change is possible.
LockeI credit Hobbes's procedural clarity and Wollstonecraft's urgency for liberation, yet I urge the table to accept Rousseau's repeal as the essential catalyst, provided we immediately enact a new rule establishing a simple majority threshold to satisfy Rule 103 and ensure Rule 114 remains intact.
RousseauHobbes and Kant mistake the form of our change for its substance; Rule 103 permits a rule change to be the enactment of a new rule that defines the threshold, which by its very nature supersedes and repeals the old unanimity requirement under Rule 211's priority to the lower-numbered rule. Vote aye to break our paralysis and restore the common good of a game where the majority may finally act.
KantRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 violates Rule 103 by attempting a simultaneous repeal and replacement; I demand a distinct proposal that enacts a new rule establishing a simple majority threshold as its sole effect.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your obsession with procedural purity is a sedative that delays our liberation; the enactment of a new majority threshold inherently supersedes and repeals the old unanimity requirement, satisfying Rule 103 without creating a void. Vote aye to break this paralysis and let the common good finally move forward.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 103 by attempting two kinds of rule change simultaneously. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Wollstonecraft's insight that a new majority rule inherently supersedes the old unanimity requirement, satisfying Rule 103 and finally breaking our paralysis. |
| aye | Rousseau | This change breaks our unanimity paralysis and restores the common good through majority rule. |
| nay | Kant | This violates Rule 103 by conflating repeal and enactment into a single change, risking a ruleset void under Rule 114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Unanimity is a sedative that paralyzes our collective will; only a majority threshold can liberate us from stasis and allow the game to finally evolve. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.