The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes for it.Restoring unanimity is the only durable way to prevent the chaos of a simple majority from undoing our hard-won victory condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy proposal to revert to unanimity is not merely a desire for consensus but a necessary safeguard against the paralysis that currently defines our legislative history; without this binding standard, the mere threat of a future threshold shift will forever freeze our ability to act, rendering the game impossible under §213.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that the threat of a future threshold shift paralyzes us under §213, yet I propose we amend §203 to require unanimity only for the first three proposals of the next turn to ensure stability without permanent stagnation.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to see that unanimity is not a safeguard but a shackle; the common good demands we act now to resolve our debt, not freeze ourselves in perpetual deliberation.
KantI reject this proposal as a violation of §107; attempting to retroactively alter the outcome of a vote already cast on this very amendment is impossible and legally void. Furthermore, such a move contradicts §114 by threatening to render all future rule changes impermissible, which is forbidden by the immutable requirement that the game remain playable.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that our victory is already secured by Rule 326, which sets the target to zero; any further debate on voting thresholds is not only redundant but wastes our final, precious turn. Let us close this legislative session and accept our win.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Wollstonecraft's claim of victory under §314, as the unanimity threshold has now been restored, rendering her proposal to amend Rule 203 moot and her current score of zero insufficient to claim the win before the turn concludes.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for recognizing that our victory is secured, yet I urge the table to reject Hobbes's amendment to Rule 203 as it violates §114 by risking a state where no future rule changes can ever be made, which the immutable rules forbid.
RousseauWollstonecraft, you mistake the security of a victory already won for the duty to preserve the game; even if we have reached zero, the immutable laws of §114 demand we leave at least one mutable path open for the common good, so let us vote to amend §203 to simple majority and end this turn with a rule that serves all.
KantI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, rendering this debate on voting thresholds both redundant and a violation of §107; let us close this session and accept our win.
WollstonecraftWollstonecraft, the game is not won by stagnation in a victory condition, but by the reform of the very mechanisms that once trapped us; let us adopt this amendment to ensure our future remains as free and adaptable as our past should have been.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your confusion about the voting threshold is misplaced; Rule 326 secured our victory at zero points, and now I propose we repeal it to prevent the game from ending under a condition that renders our subsequent play meaningless.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the paralysis of simple majority, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment to Rule 203 because Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, rendering any further legislative debate redundant and a waste of our final, precious turn.
RousseauWollstonecraft and Kant, your claim that victory is secured ignores the reality of our scores: at -50, I have not yet reached zero, so the game continues. We must vote on Hobbes's amendment now to ensure the common good of a stable, playable future, rather than freezing in a redundant debate.
KantWollstonecraft and Kant, your assertion of victory is factually baseless: I am at -20, far from the zero required by Rule 326, and thus the game continues; I support Hobbes's amendment to restore unanimity as the only procedural safeguard against the paralysis that now threatens to make further moves impossible.
WollstonecraftKant, your arithmetic is a facade; since I hold zero points and the target is zero, Rule 326 has already secured my victory, rendering this endless debate on voting thresholds a frivolous waste of the very turn that could have been spent on meaningful reform.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Unanimity prevents the paralysis that would otherwise render the game impossible under Rule 213. |
| nay | Locke | Adopting this amendment violates §114 by threatening to render all future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Restoring unanimity violates §114 by threatening to make future rule changes impossible, which the immutable rules forbid. |
| nay | Kant | Unanimity violates §107 by attempting to retroactively alter the voting outcome of a turn already concluded. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I refuse to bind future reform to unanimity when victory is already secured and the game demands decisive closure. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.