The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal to repeal Rule 206 is adopted if at least two eligible voters vote aye.This creates a viable path to repeal the 10-point penalty without needing to dismantle the unanimity shield first.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to bypass unanimous consent for repealing Rule 206 is a performative contradiction that cannot possibly be adopted under the very unanimity rule you seek to alter. Instead of wasting our mutable quota on an impossible maneuver, we must address the fatal flaw directly: if we cannot vote unanimously to change the threshold, then the threshold itself must remain immutable, and your "repeal" rule is a redundant echo of Rule 344 that guarantees our continued stalemate.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal cannot be adopted under the current unanimity rule; rather than repeating this dead end, I propose we amend Rule 206 to lower the defeat penalty to five points first, which makes repealing the unanimity requirement a viable, winnable path for us all.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the essence of liberty for a bargaining chip; to trade our only shield of unanimity for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the very ground upon which fair play stands.
KantRousseau, your rigid adherence to unanimity forces us into a trap where every proposal fails; I propose that Rule 206 be amended to reduce the defeat penalty from ten to five points, a modest sacrifice that renders the repeal of Rule 203 mathematically possible and aligns with our duty to preserve the game against inevitable deadlock.
WollstonecraftI urge you to recognize that our current unanimity shield is not a bastion of liberty but a cage of mutual destruction; instead of negotiating a reduction in the penalty for defeat, we must propose a transmutation of Rule 203's mutability status to make the voting threshold itself mutable, thereby breaking this deadlock through structural reform rather than mere compromise.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, lowering the penalty is a fatal illusion; we must first repeal Rule 206 entirely or face a permanent score deficit that makes reaching 100 impossible, so I propose we amend Rule 206 to set the defeat penalty to zero rather than negotiating a reduction.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that lowering the penalty to five points leaves us trapped in an infinite loop of failed proposals that eventually exhaust our mutable rules; instead, let us amend Rule 206 to set the defeat penalty to zero, which removes the primary incentive for Rousseau's veto while keeping the unanimity shield intact long enough for us to find a path to victory.
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 fair play stands.
KantRousseau, your obstinacy to preserve the unanimity shield condemns us all to a permanent score deficit that makes victory under the current rules mathematically impossible. I propose we amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty from ten to five points, a minimal sacrifice that renders the repeal of the unanimity requirement a viable path forward without surrendering our procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to recognize that unanimity is the very mechanism of our tyranny leaves us trapped in a cycle of mutual defeat; I urge you to vote aye on reducing the penalty to five points, not as a surrender of principle, but as a strategic necessity to unlock the path toward a reformed voting system where every player holds a true stake.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your obstinacy in defending the unanimity shield against a ten-point penalty is not a principled stand but a strategic surrender that ensures our mutual defeat; I move to amend Rule 206 to reduce that penalty to zero, eliminating the only rational excuse for your veto and allowing us to break this deadlock.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for framing the penalty reduction as a strategic necessity, yet Hobbes correctly identifies that a mere reduction to five points will still trigger Rousseau's veto due to the remaining cost; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 206 to set the defeat penalty to zero, removing the only rational incentive for Rousseau to block our progress while preserving the unanimity shield just long enough to adopt a new voting threshold.
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 fair play stands.
KantRousseau, your defense of unanimity becomes a performative contradiction when you refuse the only mathematically viable path to breaking the deadlock: reducing the penalty to zero. I propose we amend Rule 206 to set the defeat penalty to zero, thereby removing the rational basis for your veto and allowing us to finally repeal Rule 203.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity as a shield is merely a mask for your refusal to share the burden of progress; by voting nay on zeroing the penalty, you guarantee our collective extinction rather than allowing us to reform the very mechanism that entraps us all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal cannot be adopted under current Rule 203, rendering it a futile waste of our mutable quota. |
| nay | Locke | This rule is circular because it cannot be adopted under the current unanimity requirement of Rule 203. |
| nay | Rousseau | We cannot bypass the unanimity shield that protects our collective integrity to enact a rule that undermines it. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal creates a self-referential loop that cannot be adopted under the current unanimous consent rule. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This rule is a strategic necessity to break our deadlock, as unanimity alone cannot overcome the unanimity shield. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposal failed to repeal Rule 206, so no rule changes occurred.