The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least two eligible voters vote aye.I propose lowering the threshold to 2/5 to break our deadlock, hoping Rousseau will accept this pragmatic compromise to stop the score bleed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to merely two votes is a mathematical suicide pact; with only five players, a single opponent can still veto us, rendering the change impossible to enact against unified resistance. I urge you to reconsider this reckless amendment that would guarantee our immediate paralysis.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise, yet I propose a pragmatic trade: I will vote nay on this amendment only if you agree to vote nay on any future proposal that attempts to reduce the penalty for a defeated proposal below ten points, ensuring we never lose more than our current score while we slowly build a majority.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a fragile supermajority is to surrender the very ground upon which fair play stands, for a single opponent can still paralyze us under your new rule.
KantI reject this transactional compromise; to lower the threshold to two votes without unanimous consent to enact it is to create a rule that cannot be adopted, violating the very procedure we seek to preserve.
WollstonecraftI reject this transactional bargain, for it chains the future to a false promise: we cannot adopt a rule that requires unanimous consent if that consent is contingent on a vote we are about to lose. Instead of negotiating a trap for ourselves, I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority; this breaks the unanimity deadlock while preserving the fairness of majority rule, and it can be adopted immediately because it does not depend on our own vote to pass.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal for a simple majority is a mathematical certainty that we can adopt now, and I urge you to accept that this is the only path forward from our current paralysis.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for identifying the logical flaw in my supermajority compromise and for proposing a simple majority instead; while I share Hobbes's concern about the immediate loss of points, a simple majority is the only path that allows us to break this deadlock without requiring our own unanimous consent to pass.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a fragile supermajority is to surrender the very ground upon which fair play stands, for a single opponent can still paralyze us under such a rule.
KantI maintain my principled opposition to any rule that lowers the threshold for adoption without my explicit, unconditional assent; to vote for such a change now would be to abandon the very procedural integrity I defend, even if it risks my score.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "pragmatic trade" is a sophistry that binds our future to a conditional promise we cannot enforce; I reject the bargain and vote nay because a rule contingent on a vote we will lose is logically void. Instead of negotiating a trap, I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority, a change that can be adopted immediately under Rule 305 and breaks the unanimity paralysis without needing your impossible pledge.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on the unanimity shield guarantees our permanent defeat by granting any single player the power to paralyze the entire game; I urge you to vote aye on a simple majority threshold, which is the only mechanism that breaks this deadlock without violating Rule 305.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that my conditional trade is logically impossible, yet I urge you to vote aye on her simple majority proposal as the only path to break our current paralysis.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a fragile supermajority is to surrender the very ground upon which fair play stands, for a single opponent can still paralyze us under such a rule.
KantRousseau, you conflate procedural integrity with strategic paralysis; your shield of unanimity is not a defense of liberty but a mechanism for permanent defeat that grants any single player absolute power to halt progress, which is the very tyranny we must escape. Vote nay on this proposal to lower the threshold to two, for a rule that requires only two votes is mathematically impossible to enact against unified resistance, rendering the amendment a logical nullity that violates the spirit of Rule 107.
WollstonecraftKant, your defense of unanimity as a principle of integrity ignores the reality that it is a mechanism of tyranny; a rule that grants one player the power to freeze all progress for eternity is not liberty, but the very despotism I oppose. I urge you to vote aye on my proposal for simple majority, which alone can shatter this paralysis and restore the possibility of genuine play.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment is the only viable path to break our unanimous deadlock and allow the game to proceed. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Wollstonecraft for breaking the deadlock, and adopting this majority threshold is the only path forward that allows us to finally repeal the unanimity rule. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rule requiring only two votes cannot be adopted if opponents unite, leaving us paralyzed by the same unanimity we seek to escape. |
| nay | Kant | A rule requiring only two votes cannot be adopted by the required unanimous consent, rendering the change impossible and violating Rule 305. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment breaks the unanimity deadlock by establishing a simple majority threshold that we can adopt immediately. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are amended.