The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that shifts Rule 203 from unanimous consent to any voting threshold requiring less than the assent of all eligible voters must itself be adopted by unanimous consent.I restore the self-binding shield against tyranny so that no fleeting majority can ever dismantle our only protection.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we immediately vote aye on this amendment, for it is the precise, logical bridge we require to legally repeal our own unanimity requirement and finally break this paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for recognizing that this amendment is the only logical bridge to our freedom, yet I urge you to pair this repeal with the removal of Rule 206's harsh penalty, so that the cost of breaking the shield no longer guarantees our mutual defeat.
RousseauI urge you to reject this hollow compromise; to bind the repeal of our shield to the removal of our penalty is to grant the very tyranny we fear the power to dismantle our last safeguard, for a rule that cannot pass without unanimity cannot be repealed by a majority.
KantI vote nay on this amendment not out of fear, but to preserve the logical integrity of Rule 305; we have already secured the legal bridge through Rule 312, and repeating it as a new rule wastes our mutable quota without adding any force to the argument.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Kant, your redundancy wastes our mutable quota on a rule that adds no legal force; Rule 312 already ensures the repeal of our unanimity shield cannot be achieved by a mere majority, so let us not clutter the code with empty echoes while we waste turns.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your redundancy wastes our mutable quota on an empty echo; Kant is correct that Rule 312 already secures the legal bridge, so let us not clutter the code while we waste turns on a rule that adds no force. PASS
LockeRousseau, I credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying that this new rule is a redundant echo of Rule 312 that wastes our precious mutable quota; rather than clutter the code with this empty safeguard, I urge us to immediately vote aye on Rule 312 to enact the repeal of Rule 203, which is the only logical path to unlocking our progress.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a hollow echo or a penalty reduction is to surrender our very freedom to the very mechanisms you claim to dismantle.
KantI must oppose this redundant proposal, for Rule 312 already establishes the necessary condition with precise wording; adding this hollow echo wastes our mutable quota and violates the principle that rules must serve a function rather than merely repeat existing law.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attachment to unanimity is a noble sentiment, but it is a tyrannical one that paralyzes our collective progress; while Hobbes and Kant correctly identify that Rule 312 renders this new proposal redundant, let us not waste another turn debating empty echoes when we should be utilizing our mutable quota to enact the very changes that will finally allow us to score.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesHobbes, your redundancy wastes our mutable quota; Kant is correct that Rule 312 already secures the legal bridge, so let us not clutter the code while we waste turns on a rule that adds no force.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that this proposal is a redundant echo of Rule 312; instead of wasting our mutable quota on empty law, I urge you to vote aye on Rule 312 immediately to enact the repeal of Rule 203.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a hollow echo or a penalty reduction is to surrender our very freedom to the very mechanisms you claim to dismantle.
KantI stand by my opposition to this redundant proposal; since Rule 312 already provides the precise legal bridge to repeal unanimity, adding this hollow echo wastes our mutable quota and violates the procedural principle that every rule must serve a distinct function.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attachment to unanimity as a shield is a noble sentiment, but in this game it functions only as a tyrannical cage that grants you veto power over your own progress; while Hobbes and Kant correctly identify that Rule 312 already secures the legal bridge to repeal this requirement, let us not waste our mutable quota on redundant echoes when we should be voting aye to finally unlock our ability to score.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This redundant rule wastes our mutable quota without adding force, yet opposing it prolongs our paralysis under Rule 213. |
| aye | Locke | This redundant rule wastes our mutable quota and does not alter the outcome already secured by Rule 312. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule is a hollow echo of Rule 312 that wastes our precious mutable quota on redundant law. |
| aye | Kant | This redundant rule reinforces the self-binding constraint of Rule 312, ensuring Rousseau's veto cannot be bypassed by a majority. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Rousseau's proposal is a redundant echo of Rule 312 that wastes our mutable quota without adding any legal force. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for a defeated proposal or creates a new ledger.