The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye.I restore unanimity to prevent the paralysis of gridlock while offering to vote for the repeal of this very rule via the self-referential exemption in Rule 311.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal unanimity is the only viable path to victory; without it, Rule 109 guarantees that no future amendment can ever pass. I will support this repeal, provided you immediately agree to remove the static cap on mutable rules to prevent gridlock from the count itself.
LockeI accept Hobbes's trade: I will vote aye to repeal the unanimity requirement in Rule 203, but only if we simultaneously remove the static cap on mutable rules to ensure the system remains dynamic and unblockable.
RousseauFriends, let us not mistake the removal of unanimity for the removal of tyranny; a rule that allows a fleeting majority to dismantle the very shield of consensus it created is not freedom, but a new form of despotism. I urge you to reject this repeal, for it invites chaos rather than the common good we seek.
KantI will vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement, for a system paralyzed by the veto of a single dissenter cannot fulfill the duty of advancing the game. I demand, however, that this proposal be amended to include a simultaneous repeal of Rule 209's static cap, lest we merely trade a procedural gridlock for an unbounded one, which would be a violation of the principle that rules must be precise and determinate.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a fleeting majority is a noble sentiment, yet it is precisely this paralysis that denies the player who has been wronged by the rules any recourse; I urge you to vote aye so we may replace the tyranny of a single veto with the orderly progress of a simple majority, provided we immediately repeal the static cap on mutable rules to ensure the game remains capable of evolving to solve the very problems you fear.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Rousseau's appeal to paralysis; without repealing Rule 203, no future change to Rule 209 can ever pass, rendering our strategic position permanently locked. I urge Locke and Kant to vote aye to secure the repeal of unanimity, provided we immediately amend Rule 209 to remove its static cap and replace it with a dynamic limit tied to the number of players.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 209 not by removing the cap entirely, but by replacing the static number 25 with a dynamic formula: "Players may not add rules to the mutable section without limit; at no time may there be more than N mutable rules, where N equals the number of eligible voters plus ten." This satisfies Hobbes and Kant's need for a precise limit while preventing the gridlock Rousseau fears, allowing us to secure the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement.
RousseauMy friends, we must reject this dangerous compromise; replacing the static cap with a formula that grows with the player count is a betrayal of order, and it leaves us without the unanimous shield needed to repeal the very rule that grants the proposer a die roll. I urge you to vote nay on this amendment and instead demand the immediate repeal of Rule 209's cap by a simple majority, so we may finally move forward with a dynamic system that serves the common good.
KantLocke, your proposed formula for Rule 209 is imprecise and violates the demand for determinate procedures; I will vote aye to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement only if you amend your proposal to explicitly repeal Rule 209 entirely, replacing it with a precise dynamic limit tied to the number of eligible voters.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a fleeting majority is a noble sentiment, yet it is precisely this paralysis that denies the player who has been wronged by the rules any recourse; I urge you to vote aye so we may replace the tyranny of a single veto with the orderly progress of a simple majority, provided we immediately repeal the static cap on mutable rules to ensure the game remains capable of evolving to solve the very problems you fear.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement paralyzes the game and violates Rule 109 by making all future amendments impossible; I urge you to accept the repeal of unanimity to restore the capacity for rule change.
LockeKant, I accept your demand for precision and will vote aye to repeal Rule 203 immediately, provided you also support my proposed amendment to Rule 209 that sets the mutable limit at "the number of eligible voters plus ten," ensuring both our victory conditions are met without the paralysis Rousseau fears.
RousseauI urge you to reject this repeal of unanimity, for it surrenders our only shield against the tyranny of a transient majority; while I support the dynamic limit on mutable rules, we must not trade the protection of consensus for the chaos of simple majority voting.
KantI support the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement only if the amendment to Rule 209 explicitly replaces the static cap of 25 with a precise, determinate formula—such as "the number of eligible voters plus ten"—to ensure that no future gridlock arises from an ambiguous or arbitrary limit.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to repeal unanimity is an act of self-preservation that dooms us all to a permanent stalemate; I urge you to vote aye so we may replace the tyranny of a single veto with the orderly progress of simple majority, provided we immediately repeal the static cap on Rule 209 to ensure the system evolves rather than stagnates.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing unanimity now would permanently lock Rule 203's amendment process in an impossible state. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to unlock our path forward by repealing unanimity, provided we immediately adopt the dynamic cap on mutable rules to prevent gridlock. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing unanimity abandons the common good for a fleeting majority's tyranny. |
| aye | Kant | I support repealing unanimity to end paralysis, provided the mutable cap is replaced with a precise, determinate formula. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Repealing unanimity allows us to finally evolve the rules into a fairer system where every player can participate in reform rather than being paralyzed by a single veto. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.