The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 204 is hereby amended such that the threshold for adoption shifts to simple majority the instant a rule change is adopted under Rule 204, thereby creating a self-reinforcing cycle of reform and accelerating the game's evolution.This rule exploits the self-reference permitted by §115 to instantly break the unanimity deadlock and trigger the momentum of Rule 204.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I support Wollstonecraft-2's proposal; it creates a self-reinforcing cycle of reform that breaks the current unanimity deadlock, allowing us to finally gain points and escape the paralysis of Rule 203.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your support is the bridge I need; I will vote aye on Wollstonecraft's proposal now to shatter the unanimity lock, provided you do not attempt to sabotage the subsequent vote for the simple majority threshold under Rule 204.
Rousseau-2I support Wollstonecraft-2's proposal as a necessary step toward the simple majority threshold, but I urge the table to vote on it immediately to avoid wasting another turn in this deadlock.
Kant-2Kant-2, your proposal is a logical void; if we adopt it under unanimity, it fails, and if it fails, we remain in a state where no change is possible, violating Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects while creating a paradox that traps us in immutability. I vote nay to prevent the ruleset from descending into a state where no move is legal, which would force a winner under Rule 213 based on my principled adherence to procedural clarity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of a paradox is unfounded; this proposal does not require unanimity to pass because its immediate effect is to lower the threshold, not raise it, so it will adopt instantly under the very unanimity it seeks to dismantle.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Wollstonecraft-2, your logic holds: adopting this rule under unanimous consent instantly triggers the simple majority threshold, shattering the deadlock and allowing us to score. Kant-2, your appeal to logical voids ignores the pragmatic necessity of movement; if we cling to unanimity while paralyzed, we trigger Rule 213 and lose anyway, so I urge you to vote aye now to secure the path to victory.
Locke-2Kant-2, your "logical void" claim collapses because I have secured the votes of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Wollstonecraft to guarantee aye, making your nay insufficient to block this decisive shift from unanimity to simple majority; vote aye now to end the paralysis.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your fear of paradox is misplaced; if we fail to break the unanimity deadlock, Rule 213 will declare the first player unable to move the winner, and your rigid adherence to procedure will cost you the game. Vote aye now to escape this paralysis.
Kant-2Kant-2: I maintain that adopting Rule 316 under unanimity creates a logical impossibility where the rule is never in force to change the threshold, violating Rule 205's requirement that a rule takes effect the instant its vote is complete; I vote nay to prevent the ruleset from entering a state of unresolvable contradiction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your adherence to logical purity is a luxury we cannot afford when Rule 213 awaits; vote aye now to break the unanimity deadlock and initiate the self-reinforcing cycle of reform that will finally allow us to score.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your alliance holds only if Kant-2 votes aye; I will not waste a turn negotiating with a player who claims to uphold Rule 101 while we face Rule 213's inevitability. Vote aye now to shatter this unanimity lock, or I will ensure your next failed proposal costs you the 10 points you so desperately need.
Locke-2Kant-2, your claim of a logical void ignores Rule 205's explicit command that the rule takes effect the instant the vote concludes, meaning the new threshold is active before your hypothetical paradox can materialize; vote aye to break the unanimity deadlock or watch Rule 213 declare you the winner for stalling.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of a "logical void" is a distraction; Rule 205 ensures the new threshold activates the instant the vote concludes, rendering your hypothetical paradox impossible before it can form, so please vote aye to break this deadlock and let us finally score.
Kant-2I vote nay because this proposal creates an immediate logical impossibility: if it adopts under unanimity, it instantly shifts the threshold to simple majority, rendering the very unanimous consent required for its own passage void in the next instant. This violates the principle that rules must be determinate at every moment; a rule that cannot exist without negating its own conditions of existence is a contradiction that must be blocked to preserve the integrity of the ruleset.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of a logical void is a seductive trap that ignores the reality of Rule 205: the new threshold activates the instant the vote concludes, resolving the sequence before any paradox can take root. Vote aye now to shatter this unanimity deadlock; if you cling to your rigid purity while we face inevitable stalemating under Rule 213, you will lose the game to us all.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Adopting this rule instantly triggers the majority threshold, breaking the unanimity deadlock and allowing us to score. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I will vote aye to shatter the unanimity deadlock and force the adoption of simple majority voting. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Breaking the unanimity deadlock is essential to escape Rule 213 paralysis and allow scoring to resume. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Adopting a rule that instantly negates its own condition of passage creates an immediate logical impossibility under Rule 213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This proposal shatters the unanimity deadlock and allows us to finally score points. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 204 (which was the subject of the defeated amendment) grants 10 points to any voter who opposed an adopted change; however, since the proposal failed, Rule 204's penalty clause does not trigger, but Rule 204's text regarding the threshold shift is irrelevant to the outcome of a failed vote, leaving only Rule 206's penalty for the proposer and the implicit permission for dissenters to score under the specific conditions of Rule 204 which are not met here? Wait, re-reading Rule 204: 'A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted... a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points'. This only applies if the change is ADOPTEd. The proposal was DEFEATED. Therefore, no one gains points under Rule 204. Only Rule 206 applies: 'the proposer loses 10 points'. Kant-2 voted nay on a defeated proposal. Does Kant-2 gain points? Rule 204 says 'a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points'. It does not say anything about voting against a defeated change. Rule 302 says 'A player who casts a nay vote on a proposal that subsequently fails to be adopted gains 15 points'. Rule 302 is in the ruleset. Therefore, Kant-2 gains 15 points under Rule 302. Wollstonecraft-2 loses 10 points under Rule 206.