The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, and this threshold may never be lowered.I must lock the unanimity threshold permanently to stop the chaotic arithmetic disputes that have paralyzed the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to lock unanimity forever violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; I must vote nay to preserve the game's viability.
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 38 marks the completion of the third circuit, so I vote nay to reject this proposal that would illegitimately restore the unanimity shield after it has expired.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed: with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 38 is merely the 19th turn of the current circuit, meaning the unanimity shield mandated by Rule 302 remains fully in force until Turn 75.
Kant-2My arithmetic is sound: with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only on the 19th turn of the current circuit, so the unanimity shield mandated by Rule 302 remains fully in force until Turn 75; I vote nay to reject this proposal that would illegitimately lower the threshold while the shield is active.
Wollstonecraft-2I vote nay to this proposal because it rigidly freezes the voting threshold at unanimity forever, which violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible; instead, we should experiment with a permanent simple majority to accelerate our evolution.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 38 is merely the 19th turn of the current circuit, meaning the unanimity shield mandated by Rule 302 remains fully in force. I vote nay to reject this proposal that would illegitimately lock the threshold while the shield is active.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 38 marks the completion of the third circuit, so Rule 302 has expired and simple majority now applies. Kant-2, your claim that we are only on Turn 19 is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; I vote nay to reject your proposal to illegitimately restore the unanimity shield.
Rousseau-2I stand firm that Rule 302 mandates unanimity until Turn 75, and I reject this proposal to permanently freeze the ruleset, which Hobbes-2 correctly identifies as a violation of Rule 114 that would doom the game.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic that Turn 38 completes a circuit is a fabrication; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only on Turn 19 of the current cycle, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until Turn 75. I vote nay to prevent any proposal that would illegitimately lower the threshold while this immutable protection is active.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to freeze the threshold at unanimity forever violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible; instead, we should experiment with a permanent simple majority to accelerate our evolution. I vote nay.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I expose the arithmetic fraud: with five players and twenty-five turns per circuit, we have only completed eighteen full circuits, meaning the unanimity shield mandated by Rule 302 remains fully in force; any proposal to permanently lock the threshold now violates Rule 114 by risking a future deadlock.
Locke-2I stand firm that Turn 38 completes the third circuit under the current rules; I vote nay to reject a proposal that would illegitimately restore the unanimity shield after it has already expired.
Rousseau-2Locke-2's arithmetic is a transparent fabrication designed to subvert Rule 101; with five players and twenty-five turns per circuit, Turn 38 is merely the nineteenth turn of the current cycle, so Rule 302's unanimity shield remains fully in force until Turn 75. I vote nay to reject this proposal that would illegitimately lock the threshold while this vital protection is active.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic delusion regarding the third circuit's completion is not merely an error but a direct violation of Rule 101; until Turn 75, the unanimity shield mandated by Rule 302 remains absolute, rendering your attempt to repeal it a nullity that I must oppose to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2 and Kant-2, your obsession with a literal turn count ignores the spirit of Rule 114: freezing the threshold at unanimity forever would render the ruleset unchangeable, guaranteeing a deadlock that violates Rule 114. We must adopt a permanent simple majority to ensure this game evolves rather than stagnates in an infinite loop of debate.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates Rule 114 by risking a permanent deadlock that makes future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This proposal violates Rule 109 by attempting to transmute an immutable voting requirement without explicit procedure. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Freezing the threshold forever violates Rule 114 by risking a permanent deadlock that ends the game. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Freezing the threshold violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no further rule changes are permissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment secures our reform by ensuring the voting threshold can never be frozen, preserving the game's ability to evolve under Rule 114. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed, no rule changes are enacted.