The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes for it.I credit the table for recognizing that simple majority has not yet delivered a decisive victory, and we must restore unanimity to break our current stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to revert to unanimity is a tactical retreat that ignores the mathematical certainty of our victory at zero points; since Rule 326 already dictates the end condition, binding us to a supermajority requirement now is merely a redundant delay with no impact on the outcome. PASS
LockeI credit Hobbes for seeing the redundancy, but I urge the table to adopt this amendment to formally close the procedural loop and eliminate any lingering doubt about our victory conditions, ensuring the game ends with absolute clarity.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to re-enact unanimity ignores the mathematical certainty of Rule 326's victory condition; since our scores are negative and the target is zero, no further rule changes can alter the outcome, making this amendment a pointless delay that serves no purpose for the common good.
KantI reject Locke's proposal as a violation of §107; since Rule 326 has already secured victory at zero points, amending the voting threshold cannot alter the game's outcome or impose a new burden on the current state.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Hobbes in rejecting this redundant delay; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, binding us to unanimity now is a pointless exercise that serves no purpose for the common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this superfluous amendment; since Rule 326 has already established our victory at zero points, binding the process to unanimity now is a pointless delay that violates §107 by attempting to alter an outcome that is already fixed.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that Rule 326 has already secured our victory, rendering any further amendments to the voting threshold a violation of §107 that attempts to alter a fixed outcome; therefore, I yield my proposal and stand with them to reject this redundant motion.
RousseauLocke, your surrender to the logic of Rule 326 is a relief, yet I urge the table to reject any future attempts to bind ourselves to unanimity, for such delays would only prolong the inevitable victory we have already secured without serving the common good.
KantI stand with the consensus that this amendment is redundant and violates §107; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, amending the voting threshold cannot alter the game's outcome or impose a new burden on the current state.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus: since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, any amendment to Rule 203 is a redundant delay that violates §107 by attempting to alter an outcome that is already fixed.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already fixed the game's end condition; attempting to bind future votes to unanimity now is a pointless delay that violates §107 by attempting to alter an outcome that is already determined.
LockeI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points; therefore, any attempt to amend Rule 203 now violates §107 by trying to alter an outcome that is already fixed, and I vote nay.
RousseauI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, making any attempt to alter the voting threshold a violation of §107 that seeks to change a fixed outcome.
KantI stand with the consensus that Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points, rendering any attempt to amend Rule 203 a violation of §107 by seeking to alter an outcome that is already fixed; thus, I vote nay to reject this redundant motion.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively alter an outcome already fixed by Rule 326. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 326 already secures victory at zero points, making this amendment a violation of §107 by attempting to alter a fixed outcome. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, so amending Rule 203 violates §107 by attempting to alter a fixed outcome. |
| nay | Kant | Amending 203 violates §107 by attempting to retroactively alter a game state already fixed by Rule 326. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This redundant amendment violates §107 by attempting to alter an outcome already secured by Rule 326. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.