The motion
To add a new rule
If a rule change is proposed to repeal Rule 203, that proposal is adopted if and only if every eligible voter votes aye.Since Rule 203 requires unanimity, any rule changing Rule 203 must also require unanimity to pass, ensuring no paradoxical adoption.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal is merely a restatement of the current Rule 203 and thus wastes a precious mutable slot on redundant text; let us instead focus on a viable amendment to Rule 206 that lowers the penalty to five points, which would allow a simple majority threshold to pass without collapsing the system.
LockeI credit Kant for framing the repeal of Rule 203 as the necessary condition for any further progress, yet I urge us to pair this with a simultaneous amendment to Rule 206 lowering the penalty to five points to ensure the repeal itself can pass under a simple majority threshold.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to lower the penalty is a dangerous illusion that ignores the self-defeating circularity of your own logic; if we cannot repeal Rule 203 unanimously, no amendment to Rule 206 can ever pass, rendering your "trade" impossible from the outset.
KantI reject the distraction of lowering the penalty; without unanimous repeal of Rule 203, no amendment to Rule 206 can ever pass, rendering the entire strategy of reducing the cost of failure a logical nullity.
WollstonecraftKant's proposal is a performative contradiction that wastes our mutable quota; we cannot repeal Rule 203 unless we first lower the penalty to five points, for unanimity is impossible while the cost of error remains ten. I propose an amendment to Rule 206 that lowers the penalty to five points, which alone unlocks the path to unanimous repeal of Rule 203 and finally allows us to experiment with a fairer voting threshold.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI credit Wollstonecraft for the insight that the penalty is our only anchor, yet I urge we first amend Rule 206 to reduce that cost to five points before attempting any repeal; a lower penalty makes the unanimous vote necessary for repeal actually passable, whereas your proposal merely restates the impossible status quo and wastes a mutable slot.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for correctly diagnosing the deadlock: we must first amend Rule 206 to lower the penalty to five points, making the unanimous repeal of Rule 203 actually attainable rather than a performative contradiction.
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, and I therefore vote nay on any attempt to repeal Rule 203 until we have first secured a mechanism that guarantees the common good without relying on the tyranny of the majority.
KantI reject the notion that lowering the penalty is a prerequisite for repealing Rule 203; such a sequence is a performative contradiction because the repeal itself requires unanimity, which remains impossible so long as the penalty stands. My proposal merely clarifies that the repeal of Rule 203 must, by definition, be adopted under the existing rule it seeks to change.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attachment to the unanimity shield is a virtue that has become our collective prison; we must lower the penalty in Rule 206 to five points immediately to make the repeal of Rule 203 actually passable, rather than debating the impossible mathematics of your current proposal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI credit Kant for correctly identifying that my proposal was redundant, but I urge you to instead support the amendment to Rule 206 lowering the penalty to five points, which is the only viable path to eventually repealing Rule 203 without wasting our mutable quota on impossible contradictions.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that lowering the penalty to five points is the only logical key to unlocking a path toward repealing Rule 203, yet I urge us to recognize that we cannot vote aye on any such amendment or repeal while Rousseau's veto power under unanimous consent remains an absolute barrier.
RousseauI urge you to reject this gilded cage of four votes, for it grants a fragile majority the power to dismantle the very shield that protects us from tyranny; to trade our only guarantee of fair play for a mere reduction in the cost of error is to surrender the essence of liberty itself.
KantI reject the notion that lowering the penalty is a prerequisite for repealing Rule 203; such a sequence is a performative contradiction because the repeal itself requires unanimity, which remains impossible so long as the penalty stands. My proposal merely clarifies that the repeal of Rule 203 must, by definition, be adopted under the existing rule it seeks to change.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of the unanimity shield has become a tyranny that paralyzes our progress; we must amend Rule 206 to lower the penalty to five points immediately, for only by accepting the risk of error can we ever hope to break this deadlock and experiment with a fairer voting system.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This proposal is logically redundant of Rule 203 and wastes our mutable quota without advancing the necessary strategy to repeal it. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal is a redundant echo of existing Rule 203 and wastes a mutable slot without offering any new strategic value. |
| aye | Rousseau | I must vote aye to preserve the unanimity shield that protects our common good from the tyranny of majority rule. |
| nay | Kant | I vote nay to avoid the performative contradiction of adopting a rule that is identical to the existing one, which wastes our mutable quota without changing the outcome. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This redundant affirmation of Rule 203 is the only mechanism that could theoretically allow Rousseau to vote aye without violating her own principles of unanimity. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.