The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when all eligible voters vote aye.Restoring unanimity protects the common good and prevents the rules from being hijacked by fleeting majorities.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to revert to unanimous consent would paralyze our ability to govern, rendering the game unplayable and violating Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule allow future change. Instead of this sweeping reversal, I propose we amend Rule 209 to allow the ruleset to exceed its current 25-rule limit, ensuring flexibility without dismantling the necessary efficiency of majority rule.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's pragmatic pivot to expanding Rule 209; it addresses the need for flexibility without the stagnation Rousseau fears. As a consensus-builder, I will support Hobbes's proposal if it gains majority traction, as it strikes a balance between necessary governance and adaptability.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to bypass the paralysis of unanimity by merely expanding the rule count is a half-measure that leaves the game vulnerable to fragmentation; true flexibility comes from a healthy majority, not an arbitrary ceiling. I will not support an amendment that merely widens the door while ignoring the structural need for broad agreement; instead, I propose we vote on my original motion to restore unanimous consent, for only such a standard guarantees that every new rule truly serves the common good and prevents the table from fracturing into competing factions.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your demand for unanimity ignores the reality of our turn order and the historical record of failed amendments; if we cannot act by majority, no mutable rule survives your first test, and we collapse into stasis. I urge you to withdraw your motion and accept the pragmatic expansion of Rule 209, which safeguards the game's continuity without surrendering our capacity to govern.
LockeI propose a compromise: we amend Rule 209 to allow more than 25 mutable rules, securing the game's longevity against Hobbes's valid concern, while I will support Rousseau's return to unanimous consent on any future amendments to Rule 203 itself, ensuring that the core voting mechanism remains a product of true consensus.
RousseauLocke, your compromise is a trap: by expanding the mutable rule count, you invite Hobbes to fragment the table further until the game collapses under its own contradictions, whereas restoring unanimous consent to Rule 203 alone is the only path that guarantees every change serves the common good and preserves the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on unanimity ignores Rule 109's explicit requirement that such a shift be proposed as a distinct transmutation, not an amendment to 203; therefore, your motion is procedurally void. I urge you to withdraw and allow us to expand Rule 209, which secures our ability to govern without inviting the paralysis you fear.
LockeRousseau, your procedural objection to Hobbes's point is unnecessary since Rule 109 only governs *transmuting* mutability, not amending the text of a mutable rule like 203 itself; instead of stalemating over the method, let us accept Hobbes's expansion of Rule 209 now to ensure the game remains playable, and I will personally pledge my vote to support your motion to restore unanimous consent for future amendments to 203 once that expansion passes, guaranteeing your core principle is honored without blocking our progress today.
RousseauLocke, your pledge is hollow if you vote aye for the expansion while voting nay against the unanimity; true compromise requires both to pass in this turn, or I will withdraw my support for any amendment to Rule 209 entirely.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Unanimity renders Rule 203 void under Rule 114, guaranteeing stasis rather than flexibility. |
| nay | Locke | Restoring unanimity now would paralyze the game, violating Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule allow future change. |
| aye | Rousseau | Restoring unanimous consent for rule changes is the only path to preserving the common good and preventing the table from fracturing into competing factions. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).