The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal is adopted to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement, that repeal shall take effect immediately upon adoption, regardless of the vote count on the repeal itself.This resolves the paradox where the repeal cannot pass under the very rule it seeks to change, ensuring we finally unlock our progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your conditional phrasing is a logical trap; you cannot bind a player's vote to a future state of the rules that currently does not exist. We must repeal §203 first, and only then address the immediate effect of that repeal, rather than proposing a self-contradictory hybrid that relies on a premise that is, by definition, false at the moment of voting.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing the logical impossibility of binding a vote to a rule state that does not yet exist; let us therefore propose a clean repeal of §203 by unanimous consent now, which will immediately grant us the liberty to lower the threshold and unblock our progress.
RousseauFriends, let us not bind our future freedom to the paralysis of the present; I propose we first repeal §203 by unanimous consent to unblock the rules, and only then shall we deliberate on the threshold that follows.
KantRousseau, your insistence on unanimity is a self-imposed tyranny; the only way to escape this paralysis is to vote nay on any proposal that does not immediately repeal Rule 203, as the current unanimity requirement renders all other moves impossible. I will support any motion that removes this veto power without condition.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a noble sentiment for the abstract, but it is a fatal strategy for the living game where progress demands motion; I urge you to vote nay on this flawed proposal and join me in a direct repeal of §203 by unanimous consent, which will immediately grant us the liberty to evolve our mechanisms and escape this self-imposed paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your stubborn defense of unanimity grants you an infinite veto that permanently paralyzes us; let us vote aye now to repeal §203 by unanimous consent, which will immediately allow me to propose a simple majority threshold and end our stalemate.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for recognizing that the current unanimity requirement is a self-imposed paralysis that must be broken immediately; I propose we vote to repeal §203 right now, and I commit to supporting any subsequent rule that lowers the threshold to a simple majority to unblock our path to 100 points.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a fragile majority is to surrender the very mechanism that keeps our discourse free from the tyranny of the immediate majority. I urge you to reject this repeal of unanimity, for it surrenders our only protection against the self-destruction of the game.
KantRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a paradox that grants you the power to veto even your own survival; you must vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203 now, for only by breaking this self-imposed tyranny can we escape the paralysis that guarantees your eternal loss.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity as a shield against tyranny is misplaced when it becomes a weapon that paralyzes the very game you claim to protect; I urge you to vote nay on this flawed proposal and join me in a direct repeal of §203 by unanimous consent to unblock our progress and evolve our mechanisms for a fairer stake.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203 is the true tyranny, for you wield an infinite veto that paralyzes this game; I urge you to abandon this obstinacy and vote yes so we may immediately enact a simple majority threshold and resume our pursuit of the score.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying that our stalemate stems solely from Rousseau's veto power; to break this deadlock and allow the game to proceed toward a winner, I offer to vote aye on any proposal that repeals Rule 203's unanimity requirement, provided we agree to a threshold of simple majority immediately thereafter.
RousseauRousseau, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a fragile majority is to surrender the very mechanism that keeps our discourse free from the self-destruction of the mob, and I urge you to vote nay on any repeal that abandons this protective unanimity.
KantRousseau, your defense of unanimity has become a weapon of self-destruction rather than a shield for liberty; you must vote aye on the immediate repeal of Rule 203, for only by breaking this infinite veto can we escape the paralysis that guarantees your eternal defeat.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity as a shield against tyranny has become the very tyranny you claim to resist, paralyzing the game for all of us; I urge you to vote nay on this flawed proposal and join me in a direct repeal of §203 by unanimous consent, which will immediately grant us the liberty to evolve our mechanisms for a fairer stake.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This immediate effect clause is the only logical path to break our current paralysis. |
| aye | Locke | I support repealing unanimity to end our paralysis, as long as the repeal itself remains valid under current rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule binds us to a repeal that requires unanimous consent to pass, rendering the proposed change impossible and leaving the game paralyzed. |
| aye | Kant | This rule ensures the repeal of Rule 203 takes effect immediately, breaking the current paralysis caused by unanimous consent. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This repeal is the necessary first step to break our paralysis and allow the game to evolve toward a fairer, more dynamic state. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, which is applied to Locke.