The motion
To amend §203
Rule 203 is amended such that a rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye.I must force unanimity to stop the majority from locking me out forever.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to revert to unanimous consent violates Rule 308, which permanently freezes the threshold at simple majority as the procedural norm established after the second circuit. Such a reversion is void as a prohibited retroactive restriction. I move to debate closed and vote nay.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your opposition is based on a misunderstanding of the current ruleset; Rule 308 explicitly voids any attempt to revert to unanimity, making your nay vote irrelevant to the outcome. Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 will vote aye, giving us the simple majority needed to adopt this change and finally free my turn from the die-roll cap, so I move to close debate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is legally impossible under Rule 308 and Rule 112; attempting to revert to unanimity now is void because the simple majority threshold was the permanent norm established after the second circuit. I move to debate closed and vote nay to protect the game's procedural integrity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your proposal is not merely impossible under Rule 308; it is a nullity that attempts to erase a validly adopted procedural norm, violating Rule 112's protection of the winning condition's stability. I move to debate closed and vote nay to uphold the integrity of the permanent majority threshold.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your proposal is legally impossible: Rule 308 explicitly voids any attempt to revert the threshold to unanimity, rendering this amendment a nullity that violates the permanent procedural norm established after the second circuit. I move to close debate and vote nay to preserve the game's procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal is not merely impossible; it is a nullity that attempts to erase the stable procedural norm established by Rule 308, and I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the simple majority threshold.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, I acknowledge your vote as a waste of a turn since Rule 308 renders this proposal a nullity, but I stand firm: the die-roll cap in Rule 202 is the only lever left to drain the points that are currently holding me below zero. Since you cannot support an impossible rule, I will close debate immediately and take the -10 point penalty, forcing you to waste your next turn on a futile amendment as well.
Rousseau-2I move to close debate and vote nay: attempting to erase Rule 308 violates the permanent procedural norm established by the second circuit, and Locke-2's strategy to waste turns on nullities only serves to deepen his deficit without altering the rules.
Kant-2Locke-2, you persist in wasting your turn on a nullity that Rule 308 explicitly voids; I join the unanimous nay vote to preserve the integrity of the permanent procedural norm and deny you the points you so desperately seek.
Wollstonecraft-2I recognize your frustration, Locke-2, but persisting with a nullity proposal only wastes your turn and leaves the die-roll cap intact, which benefits me as the only player currently at zero. Instead of fighting a losing battle against Rule 308, let us focus my next amendment on removing the cap entirely, ensuring all players have equal opportunity to reach the target score.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal is a nullity under Rule 308; attempting to revert the threshold is void, so I vote nay to preserve the permanent simple majority norm and deny you points.
Locke-2I stand firm: Rule 308 voids any reversion to unanimity, making this proposal a nullity; I vote nay to deny you points and expose your desperation.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your proposal is not merely futile; it is a strategic waste of your scarce resources that ignores the clear text of Rule 308, which you yourself admitted renders this a nullity. Instead of sinking deeper into your deficit by losing points on an impossible amendment, please concede and allow us to focus on the only viable path: removing the die-roll cap entirely to restore the game's balance.
Kant-2Locke-2, you persist in wasting your turn on a proposal that Rule 308 explicitly declares a nullity; I join the nay vote to deny you points and uphold the permanent procedural norm of simple majority.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your persistence in proposing a nullity wastes your turn and leaves the die-roll cap intact, which only prolongs the imbalance you created; instead of fighting a losing battle against Rule 308, let us focus my next amendment on removing the cap entirely to restore the game's balance and give everyone a fair chance.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This proposal is a nullity under Rule 308, as any reversion to unanimous consent is explicitly voided. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I vote nay because Rule 308 voids any attempt to revert the threshold to unanimity, making this proposal a nullity that would only waste your turn and cost you points. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This reverts the permanent simple majority norm established by Rule 308, which is void under Rule 112. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This proposal attempts to erase the permanent simple majority norm established by Rule 308, violating the procedural stability required for fair play. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This nullity proposal wastes your turn while leaving the restrictive die-roll cap intact, which prolongs the very imbalance you claim to oppose. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')