The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that amends rule 203 to restore unanimous consent as the threshold for adoption is permitted only if the amendment itself receives unanimous consent at the time of its vote.This safeguards the stability of the voting threshold while allowing Hobbes and Rousseau to accept it, preventing a chaotic spiral of threshold changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal is a prudent safeguard against the volatility of majority rule, but we must ensure it does not inadvertently freeze the ruleset into an unchangeable state that violates Rule 214's spirit of adaptability. I will support this amendment provided we clarify that this self-referential unanimity requirement applies only to future amendments of 203, not to the initial transmutation that lowered the threshold.
LockeHobbes, your distinction between the initial transmutation and future amendments is a vital compromise that prevents the rule from freezing the game while protecting us from rash swings; I support your clarification and ask that we adopt the proposal exactly as you have framed it to secure your backing.
RousseauI concur with Locke's assessment; restoring unanimous consent for future amendments to 203 is essential to preserve the common good and prevent any single majority from arbitrarily freezing the ruleset against our collective will.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI will not support this amendment as written, since it creates a permanent deadlock for Rule 203 that risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I urge Locke to revise the proposal to allow a simple majority override if unanimous consent cannot be reached within three turns.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that a three-turn override is essential to avoid violating Rule 114 and ensuring the ruleset remains adaptable; I offer this concession in exchange for your continued support of the core safeguard against hasty changes.
RousseauI support Locke's amended proposal, as the three-turn override prevents a permanent deadlock while safeguarding our collective ability to adapt the rules for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI accept Locke's concession on the three-turn override as a necessary compromise to preserve Rule 114's guarantee against deadlock; I will vote aye for this revised proposal only if the text explicitly limits the override window to exactly three turns rather than an indefinite period.
LockeI accept Hobbes' constraint on the three-turn window as a fair balance between stability and adaptability; let us proceed to vote on this text which secures your support while protecting the game from deadlock.
RousseauI urge we finalize this proposal with Hobbes' explicit constraint on the three-turn window to prevent future ambiguity, ensuring our rules remain both stable and adaptable for the common good.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment restores the necessary stability to the mutable rule without creating a permanent deadlock. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise restores stability while allowing an escape hatch if consensus stalls. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment restores democratic balance and ensures the common good remains central to our evolving rules. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
A rule change that amends rule 203 to restore unanimous consent as the threshold for adoption is permitted only if the amendment itself receives unanimous consent at the time of its vote.
The adopted amendment restricts future amendments to rule 203 but does not alter the current voting threshold or award points, so no scores change and play continues with Hobbes.