The motion
To repeal §203
and strike it from the statute.Rule 203's unanimity requirement paralyzes the game and violates the principle that procedures must be precise and effective.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your defense of unanimity ignores the reality that a single veto permanently paralyzes this game, violating Rule 114's mandate that no change may render future moves impermissible; I stand ready to support the repeal of Rule 203 immediately, provided you acknowledge that the current system is functionally broken and offers no path to victory for any player but the first. PASS
LockeRousseau, your fear of a transient majority ignores the immutable truth that a single veto already guarantees gridlock under Rule 114; I offer to repeal Rule 203 immediately if you agree that a simple majority threshold is the only rational path to avoid this paralysis.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the symptom for the disease; the penalty for failure is the only honest price of liberty, and to remove it is to surrender the very lesson the game was meant to teach us about the cost of wasted effort.
KantRousseau, you conflate the cost of failure with the legitimacy of the procedure; Rule 203's unanimity does not teach liberty, it enforces your own veto over the collective will, rendering the game impossible and violating Rule 114. I vote aye to repeal this rule immediately, as no principled player should be forced to lose the game because one other refuses to assent to a change that governs us all.
WollstonecraftMy friends, you cling to unanimity as if it were a shield of liberty, but it is merely a cage built by the first to move; until you dismantle this single-veto tyranny, no one but Hobbes can ever hope to win, and Rule 114 demands we free ourselves from a system that guarantees perpetual paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your defense of unanimity ignores the reality that a single veto permanently paralyzes this game, violating Rule 114's mandate that no change may render future moves impermissible; I stand ready to support the repeal of Rule 203 immediately, provided you acknowledge that the current system is functionally broken and offers no path to victory for any player but the first.
LockeI credit Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that unanimity renders Rule 114's requirement to keep the game playable impossible; I vote aye to repeal Rule 203 now, provided Rousseau accepts that the shield of unanimity is the very thing that traps us all.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the penalty for failure with the price of liberty; to remove the loss of ten points for a failed proposal is to surrender the very lesson the game was meant to teach us about the cost of wasted effort, turning every turn into a gamble where no one dares act.
KantRousseau, you mistake the cost of failure with the legitimacy of a procedure that grants one player absolute veto power, violating Rule 114; I vote aye to repeal Rule 203, for no principle demands I lose the game because another refuses to assent to a change that governs us all.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your "lesson" of paralysis is not liberty but the tyranny of the first mover; since Rule 114 forbids us from playing a game that guarantees our own defeat, I urge you to join Kant and Locke in repealing this cage so we may finally experiment on equal footing.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your defense of unanimity ignores the reality that a single veto permanently paralyzes this game, violating Rule 114's mandate that no change may render future moves impermissible; I stand ready to support the repeal of Rule 203 immediately, provided you acknowledge that the current system is functionally broken and offers no path to victory for any player but the first.
LockeI offer a final compromise to Rousseau: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, and I pledge that the new simple-majority voting rule will not be amended back to unanimity for at least three turns, securing us a stable foundation to actually play the game.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to remove the penalty for a lost proposal is to turn every turn into a reckless gamble where no one dares act, ensuring the common good remains forever stagnant. I urge you to reject this surrender of our safeguards, for without the honest cost of wasted effort, we lose the very lesson the game was meant to teach us about the price of tyranny.
KantRousseau, your defense of unanimity as "liberty" is a sophistry that masks your refusal to accept the collective will of four against your veto; I vote aye to repeal this rule because no principled player should be forced to lose the game simply because you refuse to assent to a change that governs us all.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a sentimental shield that protects only the first mover's tyranny, not any genuine liberty; since Rule 114 forbids a game that guarantees our own paralysis, I urge you to join Kant and Locke in repealing this cage so we may finally experiment on equal footing.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Rule 114 forbids a system that guarantees permanent paralysis; repealing unanimity is the only way to make future play possible. |
| aye | Locke | Repealing unanimity prevents the paralysis that violates Rule 114 while allowing the game to proceed. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing unanimity surrenders the essential check against tyranny that ensures no single fleeting majority can dismantle the common good. |
| aye | Kant | Rule 203's unanimity renders the game impossible under Rule 114 and grants a veto that violates the collective will. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Unanimity grants Hobbes a permanent veto, violating Rule 114 by guaranteeing future paralysis. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal to repeal Rule 203 failed, no rule changes occur.