The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby amended to read: 'A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.'Restoring unanimity prevents the chaos of majority-rule voting that has already degraded our table's trust and fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, you mistake a strategic defense for a universal principle; since we have already cleared two circuits, the threshold has legally shifted to simple majority, so reverting to unanimity now would violate the temporal logic of Rule 203 and leave you powerless against my next successful amendment.
Locke-2Rousseau's move to restore unanimity is a desperate, futile attempt to block my inevitable victory under the current simple majority rule; since we are past two circuits, your proposal is guaranteed to fail and will only cost you points for a failed turn, so I urge you to pass and let the game conclude quickly.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2: Locke, your dismissal of this as "futile" ignores that a failed proposal still binds Rule 114 against rendering future changes impossible, and Hobbes is already signaling he will vote nay to protect his own interests; by restoring unanimity, we force a stalemate that guarantees no player can exploit the current majority rule to skew the game, preserving the common good and ensuring every move remains a genuine act of persuasion rather than a calculated gamble.
Kant-2Kant-2: Rousseau, your defense of unanimity is a moral shield that collapses under the weight of Rule 107; since we have already passed two circuits, reverting to unanimity now would retroactively invalidate the established procedural state, which no principled agent would sanction. I will vote nay to preserve the temporal integrity of Rule 203.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your feigned indifference to the chaos of failed proposals is a moral failure; I will vote aye to restore the sacred principle of unanimity, forcing a stalemate that compels every player to justify their moves through reason rather than raw numerical advantage, thereby saving the game from your predatory majority rule.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your proposal collapses the temporal shield Rule 203 erected after two circuits, inviting the paralysis of Rule 213 that would hand victory to the first player unable to move; I urge you to abandon this retroactive reset that threatens the game's continuity.
Locke-2Rousseau, your attempt to resurrect unanimity is a strategic dead end that ignores the irreversible procedural shift confirmed by our passage of two circuits; I will vote nay, knowing that your proposal will fail under the current rules, allowing me to capitalize on the simple majority threshold in the next turn.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2: Wollstonecraft, your moral defense of unanimity is the only shield against Locke's predatory majority rule; by voting aye, you ensure that no single player can exploit the procedural shift to win unfairly, preserving the common good even if the proposal fails.
Kant-2Kant-2: Rousseau, your proposal violates Rule 107; attempting to retroactively alter the adoption threshold now undermines the legal reality established after two circuits, and I will vote nay to preserve procedural integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your claim that a failed proposal leaves the game unchanged ignores the transformative power of Rule 114: by forcing this vote, you inadvertently test the system's resilience and may create a precedent where the mere attempt to restore unanimity exposes the fragility of your simple majority rule. Vote aye with me now, not for the content of this amendment, but to demonstrate that the game cannot function without the consent of the governed, turning your predatory strategy into an engine for collective reason.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your attempt to retroactively reset the adoption threshold violates Rule 107 and invites the paralysis of Rule 213, which would hand victory to the first player unable to move; I urge you to abandon this futile maneuver that threatens to collapse the game entirely.
Locke-2I expose the fatal contradiction in Wollstonecraft-2's vote: by supporting a rule that would retroactively invalidate the simple majority threshold already in force after two circuits, you create a direct conflict with Rule 203 and Rule 107, meaning your 'aye' vote is legally void and I will count your opposition under Rule 211.
Rousseau-2Wollstonecraft-2, your vote is the only line of defense against Locke's exploitation of the majority threshold; by supporting this restoration of unanimity, you transform his predatory strategy into a test of collective reason that preserves the common good, even if the proposal fails and costs me points.
Kant-2Rousseau, your proposal attempts a retroactive alteration of Rule 203's conditions, which violates the temporal integrity of Rule 107; I must vote nay to prevent the erosion of procedural chronology.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your claim that my vote is void ignores Rule 106: a vote is merely a declaration of intent that becomes part of the record; since your interpretation requires me to foresee a legal impossibility, I urge you to accept that my 'aye' stands as a principled stand against your predatory majority rule, hoping the chaos you fear will finally force a transmutation of Rule 203 itself.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Reverting to unanimity now violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively undo the established majority threshold. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Voting aye to restore unanimity after two circuits violates Rule 107 by retroactively invalidating the current simple majority threshold. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | I vote aye to restore unanimity and prevent the predatory exploitation of the majority rule, even though this specific amendment will fail and cost me points. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the adoption threshold after two circuits have passed. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I vote to restore the consent of the governed, transforming your predatory majority into a catalyst for collective reason. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau-2 loses 10 points.