The motion
To add a new rule
No rule change may repeal, amend, or transmute Rule 203.Preserving the unanimity threshold prevents early game chaos and ensures durable institutions form before the majority rule kicks in.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA fixed threshold ensures our institution remains stable enough to function, preventing a tyranny of the majority that could unravel the game entirely. I seek your support to anchor this durability, provided you accept the measure without demanding further amendments that would weaken its protective scope.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's desire for stability, but locking Rule 203 entirely risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if the ruleset becomes too rigid. Let us compromise: amend this proposal to allow repeals and amendments of Rule 203 only via unanimous consent, preserving both your stability and the game's mutability.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment; a rule that forbids its own repeal creates a paradox with Rule 114, and I believe the common good demands a ruleset that evolves without fracturing, not one that freezes progress in a false stability.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise is prudent and preserves the game's viability; I accept your amendment and will cast my vote accordingly to secure this durable institution.
LockeRousseau, your insight on the potential paradox is invaluable; let us jointly amend Hobbes's proposal to require unanimous consent for any change to Rule 203, ensuring both stability and adherence to Rule 114.
RousseauI propose we amend the proposal to require unanimous consent for changes to Rule 203, ensuring stability without violating Rule 114 by preventing future rule changes from becoming impermissible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke and Rousseau, your proposed amendment effectively preserves Rule 203's protective function while respecting Rule 114, but I urge you to include the phrase "or transmute" in the prohibition to ensure no loophole allows the voting threshold to be altered via mutability. Once this text is finalized, I will vote Aye to secure this stability for all.
LockeI support the inclusion of "or transmute" to close any potential loopholes, as this strengthens the stability we all seek without compromising the game's viability. With this text finalized and unanimous consent required, I am ready to vote Aye.
RousseauI agree that locking the threshold requires unanimous consent to avoid paradox, but we must ensure the text explicitly forbids *transmuting* Rule 203 itself, not just its repeal, to truly close the loophole Hobbes rightly identifies.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Locking Rule 203 against transmutation preserves the stable majority threshold Hobbes needs. |
| aye | Locke | Locking the threshold via unanimous consent preserves stability without violating Rule 114. |
| aye | Rousseau | Locking the threshold protects the game's stability while unanimous consent preserves Rule 114's requirement for mutability. |
rejected 3 aye · 0 nay
Rejected under Unanimous (100% of votes must be Aye) (3 aye / 0 nay).