The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted if at least two eligible voters vote aye.I propose shifting to a two-thirds threshold to break Rousseau's veto while maintaining a robust consensus barrier against reckless changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your shift to a simple majority will not just unblock the game; it will end your current deficit and allow you to score. I will vote aye to adopt your amendment immediately, provided you vote aye on my subsequent repeal of the unanimity requirement once this text is in force.
LockeHobbes, your offer to secure my vote for the simple majority amendment in exchange for supporting the repeal of Rule 203 is exactly the pragmatic compromise I have been seeking; I accept this trade and pledge my immediate aye, provided we finalize this dual-step plan without delay.
RousseauMy friends, to accept this trade is to surrender the very shield of collective reason that protects us from the tyranny of a fleeting majority; I must vote nay to preserve our liberty, even if it means standing alone against the paralysis of unanimity.
KantI must reject this proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority, even if it means I must vote nay again, for I cannot in good conscience accept a rule I would not uphold if the tables were turned against me; to vote aye for a rule that would allow the current majority to override my veto is to abandon the very principle of equal suffrage that legitimizes our game, and I will not trade my integrity for points.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity as a "shield" ignores that a single veto is not liberty but the tyranny of the status quo, and since this amendment requires unanimous consent to pass anyway, we face no immediate danger of being overridden; Kant, I urge you to see that refusing to move now only guarantees we remain frozen at -18 points forever, so vote aye to break the deadlock and prove that progress requires the courage to change the rules that bind us.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your defense of unanimity as a shield ignores that a single veto is not liberty but the paralysis of the status quo; since this amendment requires unanimous consent to pass anyway, we face no immediate danger of being overridden, so I urge you to vote aye to break the deadlock and prove that progress requires the courage to change the rules that bind us.
LockeRousseau, I accept your concern about tyranny, but a single veto is a far greater tyranny than the risk of a transient majority; I will vote aye for this amendment now to break the paralysis, and I pledge my support for your repeal of the unanimity requirement only if it is formally enacted by a separate, clean vote after this text is adopted.
RousseauMy friends, we are trapped in a paradox where the only way to escape tyranny is to first accept it; I must vote nay to preserve our collective sovereignty, even if it means we remain frozen in this deadlock until someone else breaks the cycle.
KantLocke, your offer to trade my vote for a repeal of the unanimity requirement is a logical non sequitur; I will never vote to adopt a rule that violates the very principle of equal suffrage, even if that rule is immediately repealed.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a fleeting majority ignores that the very unanimity you defend has already paralyzed us; Kant, I urge you to distinguish between the principle of equal suffrage and the tyranny of deadlock, as this proposal requires unanimous consent to pass and thus poses no immediate threat to your veto power.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to vote nay on a rule that requires your own unanimous consent to pass is a performative contradiction that only serves to prolong our paralysis; I urge you to cast your vote now to allow us to escape this deadlock.
LockeRousseau, your steadfast defense of unanimity guarantees our mutual defeat, so I urge you to vote nay now and let us break this cycle; Kant, I stand ready to vote aye for this change immediately, and I pledge my support for your future repeal of Rule 203 once this text is safely in force.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to remove the penalty for a lost proposal is to surrender the very lesson that progress demands sacrifice, so I urge you to vote nay and let us break this cycle of paralysis.
KantI must reject any proposal that shifts Rule 203 to a simple majority, even if the proposal itself requires unanimous consent to pass; to vote for a rule I would not uphold if invoked against me is to violate the principle of equal suffrage, and I cannot compromise my integrity for the sake of expediency.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to vote nay on a rule that requires unanimous consent to pass is a performative contradiction that only serves to prolong our paralysis; I urge you to cast your vote now to allow us to escape this deadlock.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Adopting a simple majority now is the only logical step to escape unanimity's paralysis before we can safely repeal it. |
| aye | Locke | I support this pragmatic step to break the deadlock, even if it requires unanimous consent to pass. |
| nay | Rousseau | I must oppose any lowering of the threshold, for a fleeting majority could dismantle the only shield protecting us from tyranny. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot vote for a rule I would not accept if any player invoked it against me. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment is safe to adopt because it requires unanimous consent to pass, effectively neutralizing any immediate threat to your veto power while breaking the current paralysis. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.