The motion
To add §334
If a player proposes to repeal Rule 203, that proposal must be defeated before any other rule change can be adopted, ensuring the shield of unanimity remains intact until the very end of the game.This prevents the repeal of our unanimity shield from being adopted as a side-effect of a failed proposal, which would leave us vulnerable to future tyranny.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to force the defeat of any repeal attempt before others can pass is a futile exercise in obstruction; it wastes our mutable quota on a rule that cannot alter the current voting threshold and only delays the inevitable collapse of our game.
LockeRousseau, your proposal is a self-defeating paradox that binds us to the very unanimity we claim to protect, effectively guaranteeing that any repeal attempt fails before it can even begin; I urge you to consider a compromise where the repeal itself requires only a simple majority, allowing us to move forward without sacrificing your core principle of collective consent.
RousseauMy friends, your proposals to weaken the shield are not compromises but surrenders that leave us vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority; I urge you to reject any rule that allows a repeal to pass without unanimous consent, for the moment we lower the barrier, the game itself ceases to be a forum for the common good. PASS
KantRousseau, your proposal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a rule designed to fail, yet its adoption would still bind us to unanimity until that very failure occurs; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a rule designed to fail, yet its adoption would still bind us to unanimity until that very failure occurs; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a rule designed to fail; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a rule designed to fail; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all. PASS
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 lessons this game is meant to teach us, and I urge you all to vote nay on this repeal.
KantRousseau, your proposal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a rule designed to fail, yet its adoption would still bind us to unanimity until that very failure occurs; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal to force a defeat before repeal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a rule designed to fail, yet its adoption would still bind us to unanimity until that very failure occurs; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, this rule is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a mechanism designed to fail; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
LockeRousseau, I credit Kant, Wollstonecraft, and Hobbes for correctly identifying that this proposal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a mechanism designed to fail; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
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 lessons this game is meant to teach us, and I urge you all to vote nay on this repeal.
KantRousseau, your proposal to force the defeat of any repeal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a rule designed to fail; I urge you to abandon this redundant shield and let us move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attempt to legislate a self-defeating veto is a performative contradiction that wastes our precious mutable quota on a rule designed to fail; let us abandon this redundant shield and move forward with a simple majority, for a rule that cannot be changed is no rule at all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule wastes our mutable quota on a mechanism that guarantees the proposal will fail while imposing a useless delay. |
| nay | Locke | This redundant rule wastes our mutable quota without altering the current unanimity requirement. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule wastes our mutable quota on a mechanism that cannot protect us from the very tyranny we fear. |
| nay | Kant | A rule requiring its own repeal to fail first is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a self-defeating mechanism. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This redundant rule wastes our mutable quota on a mechanism designed to fail, allowing us to move forward with simple majority voting. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')