The motion
To add §338
A proposal to repeal or amend Rule 203 (voting threshold) must be adopted by a vote of at least four eligible voters, regardless of the current voting threshold in effect for other proposals.We cannot break our deadlock with unanimous consent; a super-majority bridge allows progress while preserving a safety net against tyranny.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to bind Rousseau through a conditional trade is a dangerous illusion; you cannot compel a player to vote nay on a repeal of their own shield without first securing that shield's removal by unanimous consent. Instead of wasting our mutable quota on redundant patches, let us proceed with the straightforward repeal of Rule 203 under its current terms, accepting the risk of a lost turn as the price of unblocking our progress.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a self-referential repeal of Rule 203 risks paralysis if we lose the vote, yet Rousseau's insistence on unanimity as a shield is a delusion that grants her veto power over our very ability to move; let us adopt a rule that requires four votes to repeal Rule 203, a threshold we can comfortably meet without risking our scores, and then I will vote aye to remove the unanimity requirement itself, securing our path forward while sparing us the danger of a failed vote.
RousseauI urge you to reject this four-vote threshold, for it is a gilded cage that leaves us vulnerable if our allies falter; let us repeal Rule 203 by unanimous consent now, accepting the risk of a single lost turn as the only honest price for our collective liberty.
KantI propose we adopt the repeal of Rule 203 by unanimous consent now, accepting the ten-point penalty as the necessary price of liberty, rather than wasting our mutable quota on a four-vote threshold that grants a fragile majority the power to bind the minority.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your demand for unanimity on the repeal of Rule 203 is a paradox that traps us in your own tyranny, yet Kant's gamble to vote nay on the repeal while demanding we risk our scores to remove the very rule protecting him is reckless; I propose we adopt my new Rule 338 to require four votes to touch Rule 203, ensuring we can only dismantle our shield with a broad consensus, not by the fragile hope of a single unanimous moment, and then I will vote to amend the unanimity requirement itself to simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your Rule 338 is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a self-defeating mechanism; the four-vote threshold you propose cannot be adopted under current Rule 203 without unanimous consent, and if we fail to meet that unanimity, we simply lose a turn while remaining paralyzed by the very rule you seek to amend.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for the logical precision of Rule 338, yet I urge us to adopt my earlier proposal to repeal the unanimity requirement by unanimous consent now, accepting the ten-point penalty as the only honest price to finally unlock our progress and end this stalemate.
RousseauFriends, to bind the repeal of our shield to a higher threshold is to grant the very tyranny we fear the power to lock us in; let us repeal Rule 203 by unanimous consent now, accepting the ten-point penalty as the only honest price for our collective liberty.
KantI propose we repeal Rule 203 by unanimous consent now, accepting the ten-point penalty as the necessary price of liberty, rather than wasting our mutable quota on a four-vote threshold that grants a fragile majority the power to bind the minority.
WollstonecraftMy proposal for Rule 338 is not a contradiction, but a necessary buffer against the paralysis of a single veto; while Hobbes dismisses it, my amendment to Rule 203 immediately follows this vote, guaranteeing that once we cross this four-vote threshold, the repeal of unanimity will pass by simple majority, allowing Kant and I to secure the victory we all desire without risking the ten-point penalty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your Rule 338 is a circular trap that cannot be adopted under current Rule 203 without the very unanimity it seeks to bind; instead of wasting our mutable quota on this self-defeating buffer, I urge you to vote aye on a straightforward repeal of Rule 203 now, accepting the ten-point penalty as the only honest price for breaking this stalemate.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for identifying the deadlock, but Hobbes is right that her Rule 338 cannot pass under current unanimity; therefore, I propose we repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement now by unanimous consent, accepting the ten-point penalty as the only honest price to finally unlock our progress.
RousseauI urge you to reject this gilded cage of four votes, for it grants a fragile majority the power to bind us before we have even secured our liberty; let us repeal Rule 203 by unanimous consent now, accepting the ten-point penalty as the only honest price for our collective freedom.
KantI reject this proposal because it violates Rule 203 by requiring a super-majority to amend the voting threshold itself, a move that cannot be ratified under the very unanimity it seeks to alter; let us repeal Rule 203 by unanimous consent now, accepting the ten-point penalty as the necessary price of our collective liberty.
WollstonecraftKant and Hobbes mistake the nature of my proposal; Rule 338 does not require adoption *now*, but rather establishes a new standard for *future* attempts to repeal Rule 203, which you can support without risking our scores today. By passing this buffer, we secure a path to majority rule that neither your reckless gamble nor your stubborn paralysis can block.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule cannot be adopted under current unanimity because I will vote nay, leaving us paralyzed by the very shield you seek to bind. |
| nay | Locke | This rule wastes a mutable slot on a mechanism that cannot be adopted under current unanimity requirements. |
| nay | Rousseau | A four-vote threshold for repealing unanimity is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on a rule we cannot currently enact. |
| nay | Kant | Adopting a super-majority for repealing Rule 203 is a performative contradiction that cannot be ratified under the current unanimity requirement. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This rule creates a stable path to majority rule without risking our scores today. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Wollstonecraft loses 10 points per Rule 206.