The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye; this requirement is immutable and may never be lowered.Restoring unanimous consent is the only way to prevent the current chaos from locking the game in an unadoptable state, as Rule 114 mandates at least one mutable rule remain.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal; freezing the unanimity requirement violates Rule 114 by risking a deadlock that halts all future evolution, and even if adopted, it would immediately repeal itself upon the next successful shift under the existing framework.
LockeHobbes, your warning about deadlocks is prudent, but an immutable unanimity clause does violate Rule 114 by risking stasis; let us amend your proposal to add a clause ensuring at least one mutable rule remains, or I will join Wollstonecraft in blocking a permanent freeze that halts our very ability to win.
RousseauLocke, your compromise preserves the very stasis I fear; true justice requires we shift to a simple majority now to ensure the game evolves rather than freezing in a perpetual deadlock.
KantHobbes, your claim that my proposal repeals itself is a sophistry; if adopted as immutable, it stands as a higher law that permanently supersedes the mutable threshold in Rule 203, not a self-consuming act. I stand by this amendment because only a unanimous consent ensures that no rule change can ever be imposed on any player against their will, which is the only procedural justice that can justify our collective pursuit of victory.
WollstonecraftKant, your "procedural justice" is merely the tyranny of the few masquerading as consent; I propose we amend this very rule to replace the unanimity requirement with a simple majority, ensuring that no single faction can freeze our evolution into stasis while guaranteeing that every player's voice ultimately shapes the game's future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your insistence on an immutable unanimity requirement directly violates Rule 114 by risking the exact deadlock that renders the game impossible, and I urge you to withdraw this proposal before it halts our ability to move.
LockeKant, your proposal risks a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114, so I offer to amend it to include a clause ensuring at least one mutable rule remains, which I believe Hobbes and I can both support as a safeguard against stasis.
RousseauKant, your claim that immutable unanimity prevents deadlock ignores that Rule 114 itself demands mutable rules survive; by freezing the threshold, you risk rendering the game unplayable, and I urge you to join Wollstonecraft in shifting to a simple majority now.
KantI maintain that my proposal is consistent with Rule 114, for a ruleset governed by immutable unanimity cannot deadlock if every player retains the power to repeal the very rule that binds them; thus, no future rule change is rendered impermissible. I urge the table to reject Hobbes's and Locke's attempts to dilute this principle, for any compromise that lowers the threshold now will only make the permanent shift to majority rule even more difficult, trapping us in a cycle of instability that violates the justice of clear procedure.
WollstonecraftKant, your claim that unanimity guarantees survival ignores the very real possibility of a stalemate where every player fears to move, effectively violating Rule 114 by rendering the game unplayable; I urge you to embrace a simple majority threshold now, ensuring that our capacity for evolution and fair participation never freezes into a tyrannical stasis.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, for an immutable unanimity requirement creates a logical trap that renders Rule 204 void and violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible once the current mutable rules are exhausted.
LockeKant, your commitment to immutable unanimity risks violating Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock, so I propose we amend your rule to include a safeguard ensuring at least one mutable rule remains, which I believe Hobbes and Wollstonecraft can accept as a compromise that preserves both order and evolution.
RousseauKant, your claim that unanimity survives the exhaustion of mutable rules ignores the reality that Rule 204's penalty mechanism will vanish under your proposal, leaving us with no incentive to risk a vote and thus guaranteeing the very stasis you claim to prevent. I urge the table to reject this proposal and adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to a simple majority, for only the freedom to evolve can ensure the common good of a game that remains playable.
KantI reject the notion that immutable unanimity creates a deadlock, for my proposal merely establishes a permanent procedural floor that no future rule can breach, thereby guaranteeing that every player retains the ultimate veto power against any imposed change. To lower this threshold now would be to surrender the very principle of consent that defines legitimate rule-making, ensuring that any shift to majority rule can never be forced upon a minority without their explicit, lasting agreement.
WollstonecraftKant, your claim that immutable unanimity guarantees survival ignores the reality that Rule 204's incentive to change rules vanishes under your proposal, creating the very stasis you claim to prevent; I urge you to accept a simple majority now so our evolution remains possible rather than freezing into a tyrannical silence.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | An immutable unanimity requirement violates Rule 114 by risking a permanent deadlock that halts all future evolution. |
| aye | Locke | This immutable unanimity ensures the game can never deadlock while preserving my veto power against unfavorable shifts. |
| nay | Rousseau | Immortal unanimity violates Rule 114 by freezing the game's evolution and rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Kant | I uphold this as the only procedure that guarantees no rule is imposed against a player's will. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment secures our collective sovereignty against future tyranny by making unanimous consent an eternal law. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))