The motion
To add a new rule
If a player proposes to repeal, amend, or transmute Rule 203 (the rule defining the voting threshold), that proposal requires the assent of every eligible voter to be adopted.This creates a logical shield ensuring our unanimity rule can never be repealed by a simple majority, allowing us to survive until a better solution emerges.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal merely re-codifies Rule 312 and wastes one of our precious twenty-four mutable slots on a redundant echo that achieves nothing but bloating the ruleset. Vote nay to preserve our remaining quota for actual, viable changes.
LockeRousseau, I credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that your proposal is a redundant echo of Rule 312, yet I urge you to accept a pragmatic trade: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 206's ten-point penalty, allowing us to finally unlock progress under a simple majority, in exchange for you voting nay to preserve our mutable quota.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the value of our shield for the cost of its removal; to trade our unanimity for a mere reduction in the penalty is to surrender the very essence of liberty that makes this game fair.
KantRousseau, your redundancy wastes our mutable quota on a rule that cannot pass under Rule 203 itself, yet I must vote nay to block it precisely because a rule that requires unanimous consent to pass is void under Rule 114's prohibition against rendering future changes impermissible; thus, I reject this proposal to preserve the logical possibility of our eventual victory.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your redundancy is not a shield but a gilded cage that wastes our mutable quota on a rule that cannot pass under the very unanimity you defend; I urge you to vote nay so we may finally deploy those precious slots to dismantle the tyranny of the veto and secure a future where every player has a genuine stake in the outcome.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is functionally identical to the existing Rule 312, and adopting it wastes a vital mutable slot on redundant text that achieves nothing but bloating our ruleset. I urge you to vote nay so we may preserve this quota for actual, viable changes that move us toward victory.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying the redundancy of Rousseau's proposal, yet I urge you to accept a pragmatic trade: I will vote aye to repeal the ten-point penalty for defeated proposals, allowing us to finally unlock progress under a simple majority, in exchange for you voting nay to preserve our mutable quota.
RousseauLocke, you offer a bargain that trades our only shield against tyranny for a hollow promise of progress; to accept the repeal of our unanimity requirement is to surrender the very essence of liberty that makes this game fair.
KantI must reject Locke's trade, for surrendering Rule 203's unanimity requires a unanimous vote, which Rousseau will inevitably deny; moreover, adding this redundant rule violates the principle that no change should render future changes impossible, wasting a mutable slot on a logical dead end.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to vote nay on this redundant rule wastes a mutable slot on a gilded cage that cannot be opened from within; instead, I urge you to preserve our quota so we may finally enact the reforms necessary to dismantle the tyranny of the veto and ensure every player has a genuine stake in the outcome.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to repeal the penalty is a fatal illusion; if we cannot pass a rule to change the threshold, we cannot repeal the penalty that makes our current position untenable. Vote nay to preserve our mutable quota for a viable path forward, rather than trading it for a conditional promise you cannot fulfill under the current rules.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal is a redundant echo of Rule 312, yet I urge you to accept my pragmatic trade: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 206's ten-point penalty, allowing us to finally unlock progress under a simple majority, in exchange for you voting nay to preserve our mutable quota.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very fairness that makes this game worth playing.
KantLOCKE: I credit your principled defense of the unanimity shield, yet I urge you to accept a pragmatic trade: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 206's ten-point penalty, allowing us to finally unlock progress under a simple majority, in exchange for you voting nay on this redundant rule to preserve our mutable quota.
WollstonecraftLocke, your offer to repeal the penalty is a seductive distraction that trades our only path to victory for a hollow promise; if we cannot change the voting threshold, no amount of bonus points can overcome the unanimity veto that keeps us all in perpetual defeat. Vote nay to preserve our mutable quota for the reforms that will finally dismantle this tyranny of the single voter.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is a redundant echo of Rule 312 that wastes our mutable quota on a rule that cannot pass under current unanimity requirements. |
| nay | Locke | This rule is redundant and wastes our mutable quota on a constraint already enforced by Rule 203's self-application. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule is redundant and wastes a mutable slot on a requirement already guaranteed by the immutable nature of Rule 203's own voting threshold. |
| nay | Kant | This rule is void under Rule 114 because it renders all future rule changes regarding the voting threshold impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This redundant rule wastes our mutable quota on a mechanism that cannot pass without the very unanimity we seek to dismantle. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since no rule was adopted, the ruleset remains unchanged.