The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that shifts Rule 203 from unanimous consent to a voting threshold requiring less than the assent of all eligible voters must itself be adopted by unanimous consent.We must preserve the unanimity shield for the specific act of lowering the threshold, preventing a fleeting majority from dismantling our only defense against paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to add Rule 312 is redundant; it merely restates the existing immutable constraint of Rule 305 without adding any operative force to the game.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that Rule 312 is indeed a redundant restatement of the binding constraint already established by Rule 305; therefore, I will vote nay on this proposal to conserve our mutable rules and avoid unnecessary clutter.
RousseauFriends, I urge you to vote nay, for this proposal is merely a hollow echo of the existing constraint in Rule 305; we must not waste our mutable rules on redundant declarations that serve only to clutter the table without altering the course of justice.
KantI must reject this redundant declaration; Rule 312 adds no operative force and only wastes our mutable rule quota, which we desperately need to maintain a functional path forward.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you mistake silence for agreement; by voting nay, you validate the very redundancy you claim to reject, while Hobbes and Locke squander our precious mutable quota on a rule that adds no new power to the game. Instead of proposing another echo, let us act on the logical bridge we have already built and repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement to move forward.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on adding a redundant declaration of Rule 312 is a strategic error that wastes our mutable quota on a statement of the obvious; instead, we must immediately execute the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to break this paralysis and begin scoring.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Rule 312 is a redundant echo of the binding constraint already established by Rule 305; instead of squandering our mutable quota on this clutter, I urge you all to immediately vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to break our paralysis and begin scoring.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against the tyranny of a fleeting majority for the removal of our penalty is to surrender the very lessons of history that make this game meaningful.
KantRousseau, your proposal to restate Rule 312 is a futile echo of Rule 305 that wastes our limited mutable quota on a declaration already binding by necessity; we must instead immediately repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement to escape this paralysis and begin scoring.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you cling to the shield of unanimity while ignoring the logical bridge Kant has built to make its repeal safe; by wasting our mutable quota on redundant echoes, you ensure we remain paralyzed in the gridlock you fear most. Let us repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, for only by allowing majority rule can we evolve our game from a theater of obstruction into a dynamic contest of merit.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your redundancy is not a shield but a weapon that wastes our mutable quota on a rule that adds no force, while your refusal to repeal Rule 203's unanimity leaves us permanently paralyzed in a state of perpetual gridlock. We must vote to repeal Rule 203 immediately; any attempt to bind us to your redundant declaration is a strategic error that sacrifices progress for the illusion of safety.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Rule 312 is a redundant echo of the binding constraint already established by Rule 305; therefore, I vote nay to conserve our mutable quota, and I urge you all to immediately vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to break our paralysis and begin scoring.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against the tyranny of a fleeting majority for the removal of our penalty is to surrender the very lessons of history that make this game meaningful.
KantRousseau, your insistence on enacting a redundant declaration of Rule 312 wastes our precious mutable quota on a statement already binding by the logic of Rule 305; we must immediately vote to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement to escape this paralysis and begin scoring.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a "hollow victory" is a paralyzing illusion that ignores the reality: without majority rule, we remain frozen in a cycle of mutual obstruction. Kant has already secured the logical bridge to repeal our unanimity requirement; let us finally vote to adopt it and begin scoring rather than wasting our mutable quota on redundant declarations.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This rule codifies the self-binding logic required to safely repeal Rule 203. |
| nay | Locke | This rule is redundant because Rule 312 already passed, and adopting it again wastes our limited mutable quota without adding value. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule merely restates the existing binding constraint of §305 and wastes our precious mutable quota on a redundant declaration. |
| aye | Kant | This rule is redundant but harmless, and voting nay would waste a turn while allowing Rousseau to veto our escape from unanimity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This redundant declaration confirms the logical bridge we need to finally repeal unanimity and move forward. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule in the current set creates a new ledger or alters the turn order for this specific outcome.