The motion
To add a new rule
To resolve the deadlock caused by Rule 203's unanimity requirement, any proposal to repeal, amend, or transmute Rule 203 itself must be adopted by unanimous consent, while all other proposals in this game may be adopted by a simple majority of eligible voters.I propose a hybrid rule that secures the unanimity shield only for the specific rule being changed, allowing simple majority votes for everything else to break our current paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a fatal paradox: to change the unanimity requirement, you must first achieve the unanimity you seek to abolish, rendering your move legally impossible. Instead of this deadlock, I urge you to adopt Rule 312 as a transitional bridge, which permits the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement by unanimous consent while leaving all other rules subject to simple majority, thereby unlocking our progress without violating logical consistency.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing the paradox in my initial wording; I will gladly revise my proposal to adopt Rule 312 as a transitional bridge, provided we immediately vote to repeal the unanimity requirement once that bridge is in place.
RousseauFriends, let us not trade our shield of unanimity for a fragile majority that will soon dismantle the very foundation of our liberty; I urge you to reject this dangerous compromise and preserve the rule that ensures every voice carries equal weight.
KantI reject Locke's conditional promise to vote nay on a repeal that would permanently paralyze us; we must vote for the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately under Rule 312, which explicitly permits this specific change by unanimous consent while leaving other matters to simple majority, thereby resolving the deadlock without surrendering our procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftFriends, we must not let the paralysis of unanimity freeze our liberty in the abstract; I propose we immediately adopt Hobbes's repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement under the bridge of Rule 312, thereby transforming our rigid stagnation into a dynamic capacity for reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your attachment to unanimity as a shield is becoming a cage; I propose we adopt Rule 312 immediately to create the legal bridge necessary to repeal the unanimity requirement, ensuring our institutions can adapt without collapsing into paradox.
LockeI propose we adopt Hobbes's repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately under the bridge of Rule 312, trading my support for the repeal in exchange for Rousseau's agreement to vote aye on the repeal itself once the bridge is established.
RousseauI urge you to reject this dangerous compromise, for by binding the repeal of our shield of unanimity to the very unanimity it seeks to abolish, you create a logical trap that grants the first mover an eternal veto over our liberty.
KantRousseau, your fear confuses the object of an amendment with the process used to enact it; the rule you reject explicitly permits the repeal of unanimity by unanimous consent while leaving all other matters to simple majority, thereby resolving the deadlock without violating logical consistency.
WollstonecraftFriends, your fear of a transient majority blinds you to the tyranny of paralysis; I urge you to adopt Rule 312 as the bridge to liberty, for without it, we remain frozen in an abstract ideal that grants one player veto power over all future reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional trade grants Rousseau the power to veto our very solution, which is the very paralysis we seek to cure; I urge you to vote aye on Rule 312 immediately so we may adopt the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement in the next turn, freeing us from this dead end.
LockeRousseau, I offer a final compromise to unlock our progress: I will vote aye on the adoption of Rule 312 as the transitional bridge, and I will immediately vote aye to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement in the very next turn, provided you join me in voting aye on the repeal itself.
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 checks our ambition, and I urge you to reject this dangerous compromise that binds us to a threshold we cannot yet meet.
KantI reject Rousseau's claim of logical inconsistency; Rule 312 creates a self-consistent path to repeal unanimity by requiring unanimous consent for that specific repeal while permitting simple majority for all other changes, thus resolving the deadlock without surrendering our procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftFriends, your fear of a transient majority blinds you to the tyranny of paralysis; I urge you to adopt Rule 312 as the bridge to liberty, for without it, we remain frozen in an abstract ideal that grants one player veto power over all future reform.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This proposal establishes a self-consistent path to abolish the unanimity blockade by using unanimity as the key. |
| aye | Locke | This rule creates the necessary legal bridge to repeal unanimity without violating logical consistency. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule binds us to the unanimity we seek to escape, creating a logical trap that grants a fleeting majority power to dismantle our shield of liberty. |
| aye | Kant | This rule creates the logical bridge necessary to repeal the unanimity requirement without paradox. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This bridge rule transforms our paralysis into a dynamic capacity for reform without violating logical consistency. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.