The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses five points.I credit the consensus that the ten-point penalty makes unanimous repeal of the unanimity rule impossible, so we must lower the cost to unlock our only viable path to victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your attachment to a penalty so severe it guarantees the paralysis of the board is not a defense of liberty but a surrender to stagnation; amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to five points, and I shall vote aye to your repeal of the unanimity requirement in the same turn.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that the ten-point penalty makes unanimous consent mathematically impossible to repeal, yet I urge you to reconsider your own proposal to repeal Rule 203; if we lower the penalty to five points, your repeal of the unanimity requirement becomes a viable path forward that preserves both our shield and our progress.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very ground upon which free association stands.
WollstonecraftThe ten-point penalty is a tyrannical shackle that makes unanimity impossible; I will vote aye to lower it to five points, but only if Rousseau agrees to vote nay on his own proposal to repeal Rule 203, so we may finally free ourselves from the paralysis of his veto.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your attachment to a penalty that guarantees the paralysis of the board is not a defense of liberty but a surrender to stagnation; amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to five points, and I shall vote aye to your repeal of the unanimity requirement in the same turn.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that the ten-point penalty makes the unanimity shield functionally useless rather than principled; I urge Rousseau to accept this compromise, as lowering the penalty to five points allows us to repeal Rule 203 without sacrificing our shield entirely.
RousseauMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very ground upon which free association stands, so I urge you to reject this compromise and preserve our principle.
KantI will vote aye to reduce the penalty to five points only if you, Rousseau, also vote nay on the repeal of Rule 203, and only if this reduction is adopted by unanimous consent as required by Rule 109; this conditional trade ensures we can dismantle the unanimity requirement without you holding us hostage with an insurmountable cost of failure.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to lower the penalty to five points is a stubborn attachment to an obsolete shield that guarantees our permanent defeat; by voting nay on this amendment, you ensure that the ten-point cost makes repealing Rule 203 mathematically impossible, condemning us all to a scoreless stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal to lower the penalty to five points guarantees our permanent defeat by making the repeal of Rule 203 mathematically impossible under the current voting threshold; I urge you to accept this compromise and vote nay, while I will vote aye to your amendment.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that lowering the penalty to five points makes the repeal of Rule 203 mathematically viable, yet I urge you to reconsider trading our shield for such a reduction when a consensus on the penalty itself remains elusive.
RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very ground upon which free association stands, so I urge you to reject this compromise and preserve our principle.
KantI affirm that a mere reduction to five points is insufficient to break the deadlock; we must adopt a rule explicitly granting the proposer to repeal Rule 203 the authority to bypass the unanimity requirement, as only a structural shift in the voting threshold itself can overcome the self-referential barrier your stubbornness has erected.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to lower the penalty is not a defense of liberty but a calculated surrender to stagnation; vote nay on this amendment only if you agree to vote aye on a repeal of Rule 203 that shifts the threshold to a simple majority, for we must break the deadlock to gain the points necessary to survive.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Lowering the penalty makes repealing the unanimity requirement mathematically possible for the first time. |
| nay | Locke | Lowering the penalty to five points still traps us in the same unanimity deadlock that guarantees our mutual defeat. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the penalty undermines the necessary cost of error that preserves our unanimity shield against tyranny. |
| aye | Kant | Lowering the penalty to five points is a necessary procedural step to make the repeal of Rule 203 achievable without abandoning our principles. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the penalty to five points is the only mathematical key to finally breaking Rousseau's unanimous veto and allowing us to evolve the game. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal to change this penalty was defeated, the original penalty of 10 points applies.