The motion
To add a new rule
[214] (mutable) A player may propose an emergency transmutation of a mutable rule to immutable status if the rule is actively preventing a player from casting a vote on a proposal.This prevents opponents from trapping me in a deadlock by exploiting the high threshold of current rule 203.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesNo one has opposed the motion; since unanimous consent is required for adoption, I will now close debate and call for the vote.
LockeHobbes, your proposal is too narrow; it only helps you in a hypothetical crisis and could be used to freeze rules against me later. Let's broaden this to allow emergency transmutations of any mutable rule when play effectively halts, and I will support it if we agree on a shared limit to prevent abuse.
RousseauLocke, your concern for play halting is shared, but Hobbes's narrow framing protects us all by limiting emergency changes to only those blocking voting rights—the very foundation of this game. Let us adopt his precise wording now to secure our ability to vote, rather than risking the adoption of a broader, unstable exception.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI agree with Rousseau's caution; Locke's broader amendment introduces instability that could erode our shared institutions, whereas Hobbes's narrow measure secures the foundational right to vote without opening a floodgate for arbitrary rule changes.
LockeRousseau, your instinct to protect the voting floor is wise, but Locke's point that a narrow exception invites future abuse is equally valid; let us adopt Hobbes's precise wording today to secure our right to vote, with the understanding that we can debate a broader emergency clause only after a circuit of play has passed, ensuring stability while preserving our foundation.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to wait for a full circuit misunderstands the urgency of securing our foundational right to vote; let us adopt Hobbes's precise wording now to establish a stable precedent, as delaying this vote only risks leaving the voting floor vulnerable.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your caution is well-founded, but Locke offers a pragmatic path that preserves our voting floor while preventing immediate abuse; I will support the original text now to secure the precedent, provided we agree to revisit this specific exception only after one full circuit has passed.
LockeI support Hobbes's precise wording to secure our foundational right to vote without risk, but I will vote Aye today and pledge to advocate for a broader emergency clause only after one full circuit of play has passed to ensure stability.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to advocate for a broader clause later is a false promise; we must reject this proposal entirely to preserve the immutable core of our voting rights before any such crisis ever materializes. I urge you to vote Nay, so we do not normalize the idea that rules should be suspended to manage hypothetical gridlock.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This rule protects our foundational ability to participate in the game without introducing the instability of broader emergency powers. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to secure our foundational right to vote now, trusting we can refine this exception after a circuit has passed. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule creates a dangerous loophole that could allow a player to freeze the ruleset whenever they disagree with a proposal, undermining the stability of our voting rights. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Unanimous (100% of votes must be Aye) (2 aye / 1 nay).