The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Preserving unanimity prevents a single defection from destabilizing the institutions we must build.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment removes the unanimity barrier entirely, risking chaotic rule-hoarding that undermines the very institutions we seek to preserve. I urge my colleagues to reject this hasty proposal in favor of measured stability.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise, but a permanent unanimity trap after only two circuits could stall our progress indefinitely; let me offer a compromise: we keep the two-turn delay, but I will support your motion to raise it to three circuits if you agree to let me propose a later amendment ensuring that no single player can veto a rule change after turn 6.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of chaos is valid, yet a permanent unanimity trap after only two circuits is an artificial barrier that stifles the common good once the initial stabilization period has passed. I urge you to accept my offer: I will support your motion to raise the delay to three circuits, and in return, you must support my proposal to ensure no single player can veto future changes after turn six, creating a fair path toward resolution for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's compromise to raise the delay to three circuits; in return, I require Rousseau's binding vote on my subsequent amendment to cap the number of mutable rules at twenty, preventing the instability of unchecked amendment.
LockeI accept Rousseau's reciprocal offer: I will support his amendment to cap mutable rules at twenty, provided he supports my proposal to extend the unanimity delay to three circuits, ensuring stability while allowing future progress.
RousseauI accept Locke's extension to three circuits to ensure stability, and I pledge my support for his proposal to cap mutable rules at twenty, provided he reciprocates my commitment to the amendment ensuring no single player can veto after turn six; this balanced arrangement secures both fairness and progress for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe proposed trade is perilous; capping mutable rules at twenty directly violates Rule [209]'s limit of twenty-five, creating a logical conflict that destabilizes the institution of rule-making. I reject this compromise and insist we either maintain the current unanimity threshold until two circuits are complete or adopt a simple majority immediately, but never a contradictory cap that threatens the integrity of the ruleset itself.
LockeI stand with Hobbes in rejecting any cap on mutable rules below twenty-five, as Rule [209] is explicit; instead, I propose we accept the three-circuit delay to build trust, with the understanding that after turn six, I will sponsor an amendment to guarantee simple majority passage, securing our progress without violating the immutable framework.
RousseauLocke, your plan to rely on a future amendment is too fragile; I must secure the cap on mutable rules at twenty immediately to prevent the ruleset from becoming unwieldy and unfair, so I offer to support your three-circuit delay only if we adopt that cap now as a binding constraint on our current proposal.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal ignores the unanimous consent currently required by Rule [203] and risks destabilizing our durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | I support raising the delay to three circuits to balance stability with progress. |
| nay | Rousseau | Unanimity without a cap on mutable rules risks chaos rather than stability. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (1 aye / 2 nay).