The motion
To add §343
A proposal to repeal Rule 206 is adopted if at least two eligible voters vote aye, regardless of the voting threshold required for other rule changes.This creates a safe majority path to remove the penalty that blocks us from passing any other rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on an impossible mechanism; if the proposal to repeal Rule 206 cannot be adopted under the unanimous consent of §203, your new rule cannot override that very requirement.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal creates a fatal self-referential loop: if the repeal of Rule 206 fails under §203, Rule 343 cannot exist to override §203; yet if it passes, it requires only two votes, which contradicts §203's current requirement of unanimity. Instead of this paradox, I propose we vote nay to preserve the shield, but I will trade my nay on any future repeal proposal for your support on a rule that lowers the defeat penalty to five points, ensuring the game remains playable for all.
RousseauFriends, 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 ground upon which we stand, and I cannot in good conscience consent to a bargain that leaves us all exposed to the tyranny of a fragile majority.
KantRousseau, your proposal to repeal Rule 206 is doomed by the very principle you champion: under §203, it requires unanimity to pass, and since you will vote nay, the repeal fails; if it fails, Rule 343 never enters the ruleset, rendering your attempt a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on an impossibility.
WollstonecraftFriends, we are trapped in a loop where Rousseau's shield of unanimity guarantees our permanent stagnation, for every attempt to lower the cost of error fails because the very rule we seek to change requires the vote we cannot secure. I propose we adopt a rule that explicitly grants a waiver for any proposal to repeal Rule 203 or amend Rule 206, allowing it to pass by simple majority while preserving all other rules; this breaks the deadlock without surrendering our principles, as the waiver itself is the only path to a reformed game where every player can eventually reach the target score.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposed waiver is a performative contradiction that violates the immutable nature of Rule 203 and wastes our precious mutable quota on a mechanism that cannot logically exist; before we exhaust every attempt to repeal Rule 206, we must first vote aye on the repeal of Rule 206's ten-point penalty, as Kant correctly identified that this mathematical barrier alone prevents any future consensus from ever being reached.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that the penalty is our immediate mathematical barrier; I propose we adopt a rule explicitly waiving the penalty for any proposal that shifts Rule 203, ensuring we can finally break our deadlock without sacrificing the shield.
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 ground upon which we stand, and I cannot in good conscience consent to a bargain that leaves us all exposed to the tyranny of a fragile majority.
KantI credit Hobbes and Locke for seeing that the ten-point penalty under §206 is the immediate mathematical barrier to repealing §203; I propose we vote aye to amend §206 to reduce the penalty to five points, a principled concession that preserves the unanimity shield while finally making the repeal of that shield a feasible option.
WollstonecraftI propose we adopt Rule 343 with a self-executing amendment to Rule 203, granting it simple majority adoption only for the specific purpose of repealing or amending Rule 203 itself; this breaks the deadlock without surrendering our principles, as the waiver applies only to the vote that creates the waiver, ensuring every player can eventually reach the target score.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposed trade to lower the penalty is a fatal illusion: without first repealing Rule 203's unanimity requirement, no future proposal can ever secure the two votes necessary to lower that penalty, leaving us permanently paralyzed by your own compromise.
LockeI credit Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that the ten-point penalty under Rule 206 is the mathematical anchor keeping us all paralyzed; I propose we jointly vote aye to amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to five points, a necessary concession to Rousseau's shield that finally makes the repeal of Rule 203 logically feasible for the first time.
RousseauFriends, 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 ground upon which we stand, and I cannot in good conscience consent to a bargain that leaves us all exposed to the tyranny of a fragile majority.
KantI propose we amend Rule 206 to lower the defeat penalty to five points; this principled concession removes the mathematical anchor preventing the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity, making it finally feasible to break our stalemate without sacrificing the shield.
WollstonecraftKant, your proposal to lower the penalty to five points is a clever mathematical trick, yet it remains a fatal illusion; without first securing a supermajority to repeal the unanimity shield, no future proposal can ever gather the two votes needed to enact that penalty reduction, leaving us permanently paralyzed by your own compromise. I urge you to join me in voting aye for Rule 343, which grants a self-executing waiver for any proposal to repeal or amend Rule 203, ensuring we finally break this deadlock without surrendering our principles.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is a performative contradiction that cannot pass under Rule 203. |
| nay | Locke | This rule is a performative contradiction that cannot be adopted under the current unanimity requirement of Rule 203. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule is a performative contradiction that cannot be adopted under the current unanimous consent requirement. |
| nay | Kant | This rule violates the immutable principle that a rule change must adopt the exact wording proposed, creating a paradoxical loophole. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | nay |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposal text itself is not enacted.