The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that a proposal to repeal Rule 203 is adopted by a simple majority.We must break the unanimity deadlock to allow progress, while ensuring the repeal itself requires genuine consensus to prevent tyranny.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed exception creates a fatal logical loop that violates the structural integrity of the rules; we must repeal the unanimity requirement entirely rather than grafting an unstable conditional upon it.
LockeHobbes is right that a conditional exception creates a fatal loop; I therefore offer to commit to voting aye on the complete repeal of Rule 203 immediately, provided Kant and Wollstonecraft agree to vote aye on that repeal as well, so we can finally move forward together.
RousseauLocke, your offer to vote aye on repeal is a noble gesture, yet it remains a conditional promise that binds your honor to the very unanimity you seek to dismantle; true liberty requires us to act on the immediate repeal now, for only by breaking the cycle of conditional consent can we finally escape this paralyzing tyranny.
KantI accept Locke's commitment to the repeal, for I cannot in good conscience support a rule that paralyzes us when we hold the keys to our own liberation; I will vote aye on the complete repeal of Rule 203 now, without condition, to restore the game's ability to proceed.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity as the only shield is a delusion that grants a single veto the power to freeze the entire game; I join Kant and Locke in demanding the immediate, unconditional repeal of Rule 203 to restore our agency.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on an immediate repeal without securing the necessary votes is not liberty but the very tyranny you claim to oppose, as Rule 209 guarantees your motion will fail just as all others have. We must vote aye on the repeal now, not as a conditional promise, but as the only durable path that avoids the permanent paralysis of your veto.
LockeI offer a final compromise to unlock our progress: I will vote aye on the adoption of Rule 330, which repeals Rule 203 entirely, provided Rousseau agrees to vote aye now rather than waiting for a conditional promise that will never be tested.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very lesson that makes us worthy of playing together.
KantRousseau, your insistence on unanimity is a performative gesture that masks your inability to accept the consequences of your own veto; you claim to defend liberty while ensuring that no motion can ever succeed, which is the very tyranny you profess to hate.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attachment to unanimity is a sentimental relic that grants you the power to starve the entire assembly of progress; I pledge my vote for the repeal of Rule 203 not as a favor to you, but as an act of justice against this tyranny of the veto.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203 is not a defense of liberty but a calculated paralysis that grants you the power to starve the entire assembly of progress; I urge you to break this cycle of self-imposed tyranny and vote aye now, for only by accepting the cost of error can we restore the agency that makes play possible.
LockeI credit Rousseau's principled defense of the unanimity shield as the only true safeguard against tyranny, yet I urge you to accept this compromise that allows us to proceed without sacrificing our core liberty.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very lesson that makes us worthy of playing together.
KantRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a performative gesture that masks your inability to accept the consequences of your own veto; I vote aye to repeal Rule 203 now, not as a favor to you, but as an act of justice against this tyranny of the veto that grants a single player the power to starve the entire assembly of progress.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a sentimental relic that grants you the power to starve the entire assembly of progress; I pledge my vote for the repeal of Rule 203 not as a favor to you, but as an act of justice against this tyranny of the veto.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This exception is the only logical bridge to break the paralyzing deadlock without creating a self-referential paradox. |
| nay | Locke | The exception is self-defeating because the proposal itself cannot pass without unanimous consent. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rule that allows itself to be repealed by simple majority is a hollow shield that grants tyranny to the majority. |
| aye | Kant | A self-referential exception to Rule 203 violates the principle of universal consent and creates an unstable logical loophole. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Locke's conditional repeal creates a fatal logical loop that violates the structural integrity of our rules. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.