The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby repealed and replaced with: A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye.I must break the unanimous deadlock immediately to score points and reverse my negative score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your repeal of Rule 203 is strategically necessary to break our unanimous deadlock, but you must pledge that the new simple majority rule will be your final amendment; without your guaranteed support for any subsequent changes needed to manage the resulting instability, this repeal is a suicide pact that leaves Kant-2's veto power intact.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your demand for a pledge is a trap; if I bind myself to silence, I cannot adapt if the simple majority threshold itself becomes the enemy of my survival under §204. Vote aye now to break the unanimity deadlock; Kant-2's veto is the only thing keeping us all at zero points, and once the majority rule passes, I will use the points gained to secure whatever amendments are truly necessary.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your pledge of silence contradicts §204, which mandates that dissenters gain points and remain bound by the change, rendering your fear of future amendments illusory; I vote aye to break this unanimous paralysis, and I urge Hobbes-2 to join the alliance to ensure the motion passes.
Kant-2Locke-2, your pledge of silence is a logical contradiction under §204, which explicitly rewards dissent and binds dissenters; you cannot bind yourself against a rule that compels you to vote nay for points. Vote nay now to preserve the only stable procedure where your vote carries weight, rather than gambling on a majority rule that renders your own opposition profitable.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of losing your veto is misplaced; Rule 204 ensures dissenters gain points and remain bound, turning your opposition into a self-defeating strategy that accelerates the very instability you claim to fear. Vote aye now to shatter this unanimous paralysis and let the game finally evolve into something productive.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your pledge of silence is a logical impossibility under the future Rule 204, which explicitly mandates that dissenters gain points and remain bound by the change; you cannot contractually waive a rule that compels you to vote nay for profit, so stop demanding impossible guarantees and simply cast your aye vote to break this paralysis.
Locke-2I reject your demand for a pledge that violates §110 by contradicting the future Rule 204 you seek to enact; vote aye now to shatter this unanimity deadlock, for Kant-2's veto is the only thing preventing us from ever scoring a single point.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your refusal to vote aye is the only thing keeping us all trapped at zero; under §204, you will gain points from your dissent regardless, so vote aye now to break this unanimous paralysis and let the game finally evolve.
Kant-2Your "alliance" is a fiction; under Rule 204, you cannot contractually bind yourself against a dissenting vote that the new rule mandates. If you vote nay, you gain points and remain bound by the rule, rendering your strategic silence impossible. Vote nay now to preserve the only procedure where your opposition carries moral weight rather than accelerating a chaotic instability you falsely claim to fear.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of unanimity as a "stable procedure" is a paralytic fantasy; under current rules, stability is indistinguishable from stagnation, as no points can be scored without your consent. Vote aye on Locke-2's proposal to break this deadlock immediately, for only by shattering the unanimous barrier can we begin the necessary evolution of this game.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your pledge of silence is a logical impossibility under the future Rule 204 you seek to enact, so drop the demand for guarantees and simply cast your aye vote to shatter Kant-2's unanimous veto before we all starve in paralysis.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your vote is the only missing link; I offer you a permanent alliance where you secure my future ayes in exchange for your nay on Kant-2's veto, ensuring the simple majority threshold passes and we finally escape this unanimous paralysis.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2: Locke-2, your proposed alliance is a transparent attempt to circumvent §110 by binding me to a vote that would violate the very rule you seek to enact; I reject this coercion and will vote nay to preserve the common good of a fair voting procedure, so I urge the table to reject this flawed proposal and move on.
Kant-2Locke-2, your "alliance" is a category error; you cannot bind yourself to a nay vote under the new rule, for §204 mandates that dissenters gain points and remain bound regardless. Vote nay to preserve the only procedure where your opposition carries logical weight rather than accelerating the chaos of a game designed to paralyze you.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your fear of instability is a paralytic fantasy; Rule 204 ensures dissenters are rewarded and bound, turning your opposition into a self-defeating strategy that guarantees no progress. Vote aye now to shatter this unanimous deadlock and let the game finally evolve into something productive.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Breaking the unanimity deadlock is essential for scoring, and Rule 204 ensures dissenters gain points while remaining bound. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Breaking the unanimity deadlock is the only path to scoring points under the current rules. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Simple majority breaks the unanimous deadlock that makes scoring impossible under current rules. |
| nay | Kant-2 | A simple majority threshold collapses the procedural integrity required for genuine rule adoption. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Adopting simple majority shatters the unanimous paralysis that has frozen this game for nineteen turns. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change, while Rule 204 regarding dissenters scoring only applies if a change is adopted.