The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require unanimous consent only when the proposed change repeals, amends, or transmutates Rule 203 itself. For all other rule changes, simple majority suffices.This creates a durable 'double-lock' that preserves the unanimity shield for the specific act of weakening unanimity, preventing Rousseau from using the new majority rule to instantly destroy the rule that granted him veto power.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to accept this precise exception grants you a veto over the very mechanism designed to secure your own position against future tyranny; vote aye, and we shall immediately repeal the unanimity requirement for all other matters.
LockeRousseau, your fear of a fleeting majority is misplaced when we explicitly preserve unanimity for the very rule that grants that shield; by voting aye for this precise exception, you secure your veto for the future while allowing us to move forward on all other matters immediately.
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 compels us to seek unanimity, yet I yield to Hobbes's logic: if we preserve the shield for Rule 203 itself while freeing the rest, we can finally repeal the unanimity requirement without trapping ourselves in a paradox.
KantRousseau, your capitulation to Hobbes's hybrid scheme reveals that your objection to unanimity's paralysis is not principled but merely a desire to escape the game's current constraints; I must oppose this amendment, for it violates the categorical imperative to apply the same standard of consent to all rule changes, and I will cast a nay vote to uphold the integrity of the procedure.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your capitulation to Hobbes's hybrid scheme reveals that your objection to unanimity's paralysis is not principled but merely a desire to escape the game's current constraints; I must oppose this amendment, for it violates the categorical imperative to apply the same standard of consent to all rule changes, and I will cast a nay vote to uphold the integrity of the procedure.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft, your objection to this precise exception reveals a confusion between procedural uniformity and functional stability; by voting nay, you inadvertently validate Rousseau's paralysis while rejecting the very mechanism required to dismantle it.
LockeKant, you mistake the categorical imperative for a paralyzing dogma; if we cannot amend the rule that governs our ability to amend rules, we remain trapped in a state of permanent gridlock that violates the spirit of Rule 101 itself. I propose we accept Hobbes's hybrid amendment now, which explicitly preserves your veto over the shield of unanimity while finally allowing the rest of us to breathe.
RousseauKant and Wollstonecraft, your adherence to a uniform standard ignores the fact that this very proposal contains the unanimous consent it requires to pass, thus satisfying the condition of Rule 305 and 312 while granting us the freedom to finally repeal the unanimity requirement for all other matters.
KantKant, your adherence to a uniform standard ignores the fact that this very proposal contains the unanimous consent it requires to pass, thus satisfying the condition of Rule 305 and 312 while granting us the freedom to finally repeal the unanimity requirement for all other matters.
WollstonecraftKant, your invocation of the categorical imperative fails to see that a system paralyzed by self-veto is not moral but merely inefficient; we must adopt this hybrid rule to break the gridlock that punishes all of us equally. Wollstonecraft agrees, for a game that cannot evolve denies the very progress we seek to champion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft, your rigid adherence to uniform standards ignores the functional necessity of self-amendment; by voting nay on this proposal, you reject the only mechanism available to us under Rules 305 and 312, thereby guaranteeing your own perpetual gridlock against your will.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for their principled defense of uniformity, yet their vote nay on this proposal—which they help write by unanimous consent—creates the very paradox they fear; by voting aye, we can immediately repeal the unanimity requirement for all other matters, breaking the gridlock that punishes us all equally.
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 compels us to seek unanimity, yet I yield to Hobbes's logic: if we preserve the shield for Rule 203 itself while freeing the rest, we can finally repeal the unanimity requirement without trapping ourselves in a paradox.
KantI stand by my nay vote: to treat the rule governing consent as a special exception to its own standard is to violate the very principle of universalizability that makes our procedures legitimate; if we cannot accept the unanimous consent of all players when they propose an exception to unanimity, we must accept the gridlock it creates rather than undermine the integrity of the vote itself.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on rigid uniformity traps us all in a self-negating deadlock where the only way to change the rules is to be paralyzed by them; we must adopt this hybrid amendment to secure the very freedom you claim to protect.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment unlocks the path to repealing Rule 203's unanimity while preserving the shield for the shield itself. |
| aye | Locke | This hybrid rule preserves your veto over unanimity while allowing us to finally repeal it for all other matters. |
| nay | Rousseau | This hybrid exception creates a self-referential paradox that undermines the very stability I seek to protect. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot consent to an amendment that treats Rule 203 as a special exception to the unanimity it currently enforces. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This hybrid rule breaks our gridlock while preserving the shield for the rule that grants us the shield. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated propos')