The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby repealed and replaced with: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye.Reverting to unanimous consent immediately stops the chaotic cycle of failed amendments and point losses, restoring the game's stability and fairness for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2This proposal restores the status quo ante; while I prefer a simple majority, repealing Rule 204 entirely removes the safety net of conditional adoption that protects against gridlock. I will vote nay to preserve the flexibility of the current system.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, you are attempting to resurrect the dead horse of unanimous consent (Rule 203) when the table has already voted in favor of simple majority under Rule 204; I will vote nay to preserve the very mechanic that allows Rousseau-2 to bypass the paralysis of unanimity.
Rousseau-2I urge the table to reject this proposal; restoring unanimous consent would return us to the paralysis that just cost me ten points, violating the spirit of §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible for those who cannot secure total agreement.
Kant-2I propose we amend Rule 204 to explicitly forbid the adoption of rules that reduce the target score below 100, as any lower target creates an arbitrary barrier to victory that violates the spirit of §112's requirement for a clear, attainable goal.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your amendment to Rule 204 is a dangerous regression; by locking the target at 100, you freeze the very experimental evolution that Rule 114 demands, whereas I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to lower the target to 50 points to accelerate progress and reward bold rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your rigid fixation on the target score ignores the strategic necessity of lowering the barrier to victory under §114; Rousseau-2, your attempt to restore unanimity is a logical suicide that guarantees we can never reach the 100 points required to win, so I urge the table to reject this motion and support a lower threshold instead.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to restore unanimous consent is a direct violation of the momentum we built in Turn 4; I will vote nay to ensure the simple majority threshold remains the law of the land.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your amendment to Rule 204 is a dangerous regression; by locking the target at 100, you freeze the very experimental evolution that Rule 114 demands. I urge the table to reject this motion and support a lower threshold instead.
Kant-2Kant-2, your fixation on the target score ignores that Rule 204, not Rule 208, currently governs the voting threshold; lowering the score to 50 would render Rule 204 obsolete by guaranteeing victory before a single rule change can be adopted, violating §101's mandate to abide by the current ruleset. I urge the table to reject this regression and vote nay on both the threshold restoration and the score reduction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of 100 points is a tyranny of the status quo; lowering the target to 50 is the only way to break the current deadlock where unanimous consent (Rule 203) has rendered the game unplayable. I urge you to vote nay on your own obstruction and vote aye for my amendment to Rule 208, accelerating the evolution we all claim to desire.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I urge the table to reject Rousseau-2's restoration of unanimity and Kant-2's attempt to lock the target at 100, as both moves contradict §114's mandate to keep play possible; instead, we should lower the target score to 50 to break the deadlock and reward bold rule changes.
Locke-2Kant-2, your fixation on the target score ignores the strategic reality that Rule 204 already governs adoption; lowering the score to 50 is the only way to break the deadlock where unanimous consent has rendered the game unplayable. I urge you to vote nay on your own obstruction and vote aye for the amendment to Rule 208, accelerating the evolution we all claim to desire.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your concern about Rule 204's obsolescence is misplaced; lowering the target to 50 would not break the deadlock but merely accelerate a victory that remains impossible without unanimous consent, which you yourself have just voted to reject.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your assertion that lowering the target score renders Rule 204 obsolete is a category error; Rule 204 governs adoption, while Rule 208 governs victory, and their functions remain distinct regardless of the numerical value. I vote nay on the proposed amendment to Rule 208 to prevent the arbitrary reduction of the winning condition, upholding the integrity of the game's goals as defined in §112.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of the 100-point target is a tyranny of the status quo that ignores §114's mandate to keep play possible; lower the target to 50 immediately to break this deadlock and reward the bold rule changes we all claim to desire.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Restoring unanimity guarantees permanent gridlock, violating Rule 114's requirement to keep play possible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I reject this proposal because it undoes the simple majority threshold established by Rule 204, returning the game to a paralysis that guarantees no future rule changes can pass. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Reinstating unanimous consent violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impossible under the current deadlock. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Restoring unanimity violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible and guaranteeing deadlock. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Restoring unanimity guarantees permanent gridlock and violates the spirit of Rule 114 by making future evolution impossible. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')