The motion
To add a new rule
If a player is unable to cast a vote because the ruleset renders their vote impossible to determine or cast, that player's vote shall be counted as 'aye' for the purpose of any proposal they did not explicitly vote 'nay' on.This ensures the common good is served by treating a paralyzed voter as supportive rather than obstructive, preserving the possibility of progress when the rules trap us.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal attempts to bypass the explicit prohibition of Rule 105 that every eligible voter must cast a vote; such a "default aye" is an impermissible regulation of an unstated default that undermines the very unanimity you claim to protect. PASS
LockeI credit Rousseau for attempting to salvage the voting process, yet Hobbes is correct: invoking an unstated default violates Rule 106's demand for exact wording and Rule 105's mandate for explicit action. We must instead find a way to amend Rule 203 and Rule 206 to allow the repeal of unanimity without the crushing penalty, rather than rewriting the mechanics of an impossible vote.
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. PASS
KantRousseau, your proposed default 'aye' is a dangerous fiction that violates Rule 106's strict mandate that proposals be written in the exact words to be voted; such a mechanism cannot be enacted without explicit textual amendment. We must not waste our mutable quota on performative fixes when the path to repeal Rule 203's unanimity remains blocked by your refusal to accept the ten-point cost of error.
WollstonecraftI credit Rousseau for attempting to fix a broken mechanism, yet this "default aye" is a dangerous fiction that violates Rule 105's mandate for explicit action; we must instead find a way to amend Rule 203 and Rule 206 to allow the repeal of unanimity without the crushing penalty, rather than rewriting the mechanics of an impossible vote. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to manufacture consent through a default 'aye' is a fatal evasion of Rule 105; we must stop wasting our mutable quota on performative fixes and accept the strategic necessity of repealing Rule 206's ten-point penalty to finally break this deadlock.
LockeI credit Rousseau for his principled defense of the voting mechanism, yet Hobbes and Kant are correct that a default 'aye' violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording and Rule 105's mandate for explicit action; we must instead focus our mutable quota on repealing Rule 206 to remove the ten-point penalty that makes unanimous repeal of Rule 203 impossible.
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. PASS
KantRousseau, your attempt to manufacture consent through a "default aye" violates Rule 106's mandate that proposals be written in exact words and Rule 105's requirement for explicit action; we must instead focus on repealing Rule 206's penalty to make the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity a viable, principled path forward.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your "default aye" is a dangerous fiction that violates Rule 105's mandate for explicit action; we must instead focus on repealing Rule 206's penalty to make the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity a viable path forward.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your "default aye" is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota on an unenactable fiction; we must instead accept the strategic necessity of repealing Rule 206's penalty to finally break this deadlock.
LockeI credit Rousseau for his principled defense of the unanimity shield, yet Hobbes is correct that we must lower the penalty for defeated proposals to make repealing Rule 203's unanimity requirement strategically viable; let us unite on repealing Rule 206 to finally unlock our progress.
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.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to lower the penalty for error is a stubborn attachment to an obsolete shield that guarantees our permanent defeat; we must accept the strategic necessity of repealing Rule 206 to finally unlock the path to reforming Rule 203.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal attempts to override Rule 105's explicit mandate that every voter must cast a vote, which violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates Rule 105's mandate that every eligible voter must explicitly cast a vote, and Rule 106 requires exact wording for all proposals. |
| nay | Rousseau | This default vote violates the immutable mandate of Rule 105 that every voter must cast an explicit vote, creating an unenactable fiction. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 106 forbids adding unstated defaults to a proposal's text; this amendment violates the principle of exact wording. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This 'default aye' violates Rule 105's mandate for explicit action and Rule 106's requirement for exact wording, creating an unenactable fiction. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for a vote division or creates a new ledger.