The motion
To add a new rule
When a proposal is defeated, the proposer must wait one full turn before proposing a change of the same kind (add, amend, repeal, or transmute) again.This prevents the tyranny of repetition and forces us to seek broader consensus rather than grinding the same failed ideas.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA one-turn cooldown on defeated proposals would severely hinder strategic adaptation and likely violate Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if we hit a wall; I must dissent to preserve the game's fluidity.
LockeRousseau, your intent to slow down failed attempts is understandable, but Hobbes correctly identifies that a hard cooldown risks violating Rule 114; instead of blocking adaptation, let's compromise by limiting such penalties only after a rule reaches the maximum mutable limit of 25 under Rule 209, preserving flexibility while curbing repetitive spam.
RousseauI agree that a blanket ban on repetition violates Rule 114, but Locke's compromise is flawed because it allows endless spam of the same failed ideas as long as the mutable limit remains under 25. We should instead adopt a rule requiring a simple majority to pass changes, which would allow us to overcome deadlock and move forward without needing such restrictive cooldowns.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI yield to your proposal to lower the threshold to simple majority, as it directly resolves the deadlock that makes Rule 203's unanimity a strategic trap, provided this amendment is immediately adopted before Locke can attempt another change.
LockeI support Rousseau's move to simple majority, as it breaks our current deadlock without the rigidity of a cooldown, and I will vote aye to ensure we progress before the turn clock expires.
RousseauI propose we adopt simple majority voting immediately to break our unanimity deadlock, ensuring the game remains fair and playable without the stagnation of endless failed proposals. This change allows us to move forward constructively, aligning with the common good by preventing any single player from holding progress hostage.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI concur with Rousseau's proposal to shift to simple majority; it dismantles the strategic stranglehold of unanimity while preserving Rule 114 by ensuring future changes remain possible. Locke, your earlier suggestion to tie penalties to the mutable limit was insufficient; let us adopt Rousseau's amendment now to break this deadlock before Locke wastes another turn.
LockeI concur with shifting to a simple majority to break our unanimity deadlock, ensuring the game remains fair and playable without stagnation. Let us adopt this change immediately so Locke does not waste another turn on a proposal destined to fail under the current impossible threshold.
RousseauMy proposal to adopt simple majority voting is sound because it directly addresses the strategic paralysis caused by Rule 203's unanimity requirement, ensuring that no single player can indefinitely block progress while remaining fully compatible with Rule 114. By shifting to a simple majority threshold now, we resolve the current deadlock and create a fair environment where rule evolution serves the common good rather than stalling the game.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 204 already ensures defeated proposals bind the ruleset immediately, making an additional cooldown redundant and a potential violation of Rule 114. |
| aye | Locke | A one-turn cooldown directly addresses the spam issue without violating Rule 114, making it a safer compromise than shifting to simple majority. |
| abstain | Rousseau | (unintelligible ballot) |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (1 aye / 1 nay).