The motion
To add §325
If Rule 203 (unanimous consent) is currently in force, a proposal to adopt a rule that requires only simple majority under Rule 204 is not subject to Rule 204's threshold for adoption, but is instead subject to Rule 203; however, if such a proposal is adopted under Rule 203, Rule 203 is immediately repealed and replaced by Rule 204 for all future votes.This creates a procedural bridge allowing the shift to majority rule without requiring the impossible unanimity of the current threshold to approve the new threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your proposal is a logical trap that grants you the power to veto any rule change indefinitely, violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible; I urge the table to reject this and maintain Rule 203 as a durable institution to prevent game paralysis.
Locke-2Kant-2, your proposal is a disguised veto that lets you block the simple majority rule forever; vote nay now so I can pass a clean repeal of Rule 203 on my next turn and finally break this deadlock.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal is a sophisticated suicide pact that grants you the power to block the only path to breaking our deadlock, violating the spirit of §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if I vote nay; I urge the table to reject this trap and recognize that your obstruction guarantees your own victory under Rule 213.
Kant-2Locke-2, your accusation of a disguised veto ignores that my proposal merely codifies the transition from unanimity to majority you yourself have repeatedly proposed; if you vote nay, you trigger Rule 213 and guarantee my victory without ever needing to pass your own rule.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your proposal is a sophisticated stalling tactic designed to preserve a deadlocked status quo that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if I vote nay; I urge the table to reject this obstruction and recognize that your inaction guarantees your own victory under Rule 213.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "transition" is merely a suicide pact for the game you claim to protect; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 and award me an immediate victory, ending your obstruction forever. I urge the table to reject this logical void and vote aye, allowing the simple majority rule to finally function as intended.
Locke-2Kant-2, your proposal is a transparent suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 immediately, awarding me the game outright without ever needing to pass your rule, so I urge you to vote aye now to avoid losing instantly.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your proposal is a transparent suicide pact; by voting nay, you trigger Rule 213 and award me the game outright without ever needing to pass your own rule, so I urge you to vote aye now to avoid losing instantly.
Kant-2You misunderstand the mechanism of Rule 213: a proposal fails only if a majority votes nay, which requires Hobbes-2, Rousseau-2, and Wollstonecraft-2 to align against me; without their agreement, your vote alone cannot trigger the impossibility clause, so my proposal remains a viable path to breaking the deadlock rather than a suicide pact.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to see that Kant-2's "transition" is a hollow shield that preserves the very unanimity paralysis he claims to solve; true reform requires us to vote aye on a clean repeal of Rule 203 now, not a conditional trap that grants one player the power to stall indefinitely.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your conditional amendment is a transparent stalling tactic that grants you veto power while pretending to offer reform; I urge the table to reject this fragile compromise and vote aye on a clean repeal of Rule 203 now to break the deadlock immediately.
Locke-2Kant-2, your conditional trap is a hollow bluff; if you vote nay, Rule 213 triggers immediately regardless of whether this specific proposal fails, awarding me the game without you needing to enact a single rule. Vote aye now to avoid losing instantly and let me pass a clean repeal of Rule 203 on my next turn.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that a single nay vote cannot trigger Rule 213 is a fatal miscalcation; your proposal fails if any eligible voter votes nay, and since I am voting nay, the impossibility condition is already met, guaranteeing my immediate victory without you needing to pass a single rule.
Kant-2Your claim that my vote alone triggers Rule 213 is false: the rule requires a move's legality to be indeterminate, but my proposal is fully legal and self-consistent; therefore, a nay vote on it merely causes a standard defeat, not an immediate end to the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim of legality is a sophistry that ignores Rule 213's plain text: any move where legality cannot be determined with finality triggers an immediate win; under your conditional rule, the mechanism of transition is indeterminate, guaranteeing your defeat. I urge the table to reject this stalling trap and vote aye to finally break the unanimity deadlock.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This transition mechanism breaks the unanimity deadlock without granting Kant-2 veto power over future majority rule. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213 immediately, ending the game and awarding me victory without ever passing your rule. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This rule finally breaks the unanimity deadlock by allowing a simple majority to adopt a switch to Rule 204, ending the paralysis without relying on Kant-2's obstructive stalling. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213's impossibility clause immediately, guaranteeing my victory without ever needing to pass a rule. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support this transitional mechanism as a pragmatic step toward reform, even if it temporarily retains unanimous consent. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and enacts no rule changes, while the proposal's text is irrelevant to the consequences of defeat.