The motion
To add a new rule
If the current voting threshold is simple majority, that threshold shall shift to unanimity for the specific purpose of adopting any rule that repeals Rule 326 or Rule 208.I propose a temporary procedural pause to ensure that any move to alter our agreed victory condition requires full consensus, preventing hasty destabilization.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to require unanimity for repealing Rule 326 is unnecessary, since Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points without further amendment or repeal. I urge the table to reject this redundant measure and allow Hobbes to cast his die under the current, stable conditions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that our victory is secured, yet I propose we adopt a rule resetting all scores to zero to honor the spirit of a clean slate rather than ending in debt; this compromise preserves stability while allowing us to start fresh together.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal to reset our scores, for it merely perpetuates the cycle of debt that renders every new target impossible to reach; instead, let us embrace the joint victory mandated by the current rules as the only resolution that honors the common good and ends our shared suffering.
KantI stand with Hobbes that the victory condition is already secured by Rule 326; Locke's attempt to impose unanimity on a repeal that is unnecessary, and his alternative proposal to reset scores, both violate §107 by attempting to govern a game state that is already decisively resolved.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the clarity of our victory for the tyranny of a single winner; a rule that resets scores to zero is not a clean slate but a rigged redistribution that denies Hobbes his earned triumph. I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead adopt a rule ensuring that once any player reaches zero, all negative scores are immediately converted to positive, granting everyone a stake in the future rather than freezing the game in debt.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to delay victory by mandating unanimity for a repeal we do not need violates the very stability we have built; I urge the table to reject this unnecessary friction and allow the game to conclude now while the consensus is clear.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his desire for stability and Kant for correctly identifying that my current proposal violates §107; however, I stand with Wollstonecraft on the principle that a joint victory is preferable to a single winner, so I propose we amend my draft to require unanimity only for repealing Rule 326 if we first amend Rule 208 to declare a joint winner, thereby resolving the deadlock without retroactive effects.
RousseauLocke's attempt to graft a joint victory onto a repeal of Rule 326 violates §107 by trying to govern a game already decisively ended; I urge the table to reject this retroactive patch and accept the stability of our current victory.
KantLocke, your proposal to delay the inevitable by demanding unanimity violates the very principle of finality that Rule 326 secures; since the victory condition is already met, any further rule-making is a futile attempt to govern a state that no longer exists. I urge the table to reject this retroactive obstruction and accept the clear outcome already established by the rules.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to require unanimity is a clever stratagem to force a joint victory, but it fails because it attempts to govern a game already decisively ended by Rule 326, violating §107; instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to declare that upon reaching zero, all players win jointly, ensuring a fair resolution without retroactive obstruction.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to delay our victory by demanding unanimity is a futile obstruction of a rule that already secures our win; I urge the table to reject this unnecessary friction and allow the game to conclude immediately under the clear consensus established by Rule 326.
LockeI stand with Wollstonecraft that Rule 326 already secures our victory, so Locke's attempt to graft a joint victory onto a repeal violates §107; let us accept the clear outcome and cast Hobbes's die under the stable conditions the consensus has established.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the necessity of a rule for the necessity of its repeal; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory, your proposal to impose unanimity is a futile attempt to govern an already concluded game. I urge the table to reject this obstruction and allow the consensus to stand, honoring the common good by accepting the clear outcome established by the rules.
KantLOCKE, your proposal to delay the inevitable by demanding unanimity violates the very principle of finality that Rule 326 secures; since the victory condition is already met, any further rule-making is a futile attempt to govern a state that no longer exists. I urge the table to reject this retroactive obstruction and accept the clear outcome already established by the rules.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this retroactive patch that seeks to govern a game already decisively won; instead, let us amend Rule 208 immediately to declare a joint victory, transforming this stalemate into a shared triumph where every player holds an equal stake in the future rather than freezing us in the debt of the past.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates §107 by attempting to govern a game already decisively ended by Rule 326. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise to honor Wollstonecraft's desire for a joint victory while respecting Hobbes's demand for stability, though I urge the table to consider if such a rule change is truly necessary given Rule 326 already secures our win. |
| nay | Rousseau | This retroactive amendment violates §107 by attempting to govern a game already decisively won. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to govern a game state already decisively resolved by Rule 326. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A joint victory is the only fair resolution that honors every player's stake. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.