The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, and the ruleset shall automatically shift to simple majority voting on the first proposal that achieves it.This proposal ensures that once we break the unanimity deadlock, the system locks into a simple majority, making further progress possible for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment is dangerous; it grants his own proposals a built-in path to victory by automatically lowering the threshold once he achieves a majority, effectively allowing him to rewrite the rules to his advantage. I propose we instead amend [203] to require a supermajority of two-thirds for any change that alters voting thresholds, ensuring such fundamental shifts remain durable and not subject to opportunistic manipulation.
LockeHobbes, your concern about opportunism is valid, but locking the threshold in [203] only stalls progress until we reach a fragile supermajority; let's compromise by amending [204] to require a simple majority vote to *initiate* the shift, ensuring no single player can trigger the change unilaterally while allowing us to move forward together.
RousseauI support Hobbes's caution; a rule that automatically lowers the threshold to simple majority without explicit, conscious consent risks eroding the spirit of our unanimous agreement and could be exploited by a player who secures even a fleeting lead. Let us instead retain the current requirement that a proposal must be explicitly voted to shift the threshold, ensuring that such a fundamental change remains a deliberate act of the whole table rather than an automatic consequence of chance.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to auto-shift the threshold is a trap that rewards momentum over consent; Rousseau is correct that such fundamental changes must remain deliberate acts of the whole table, not automatic consequences of chance. I urge us to reject Locke's amendment in favor of retaining the current requirement for explicit unanimous consent on every rule change.
LockeI propose we compromise by amending [203] to allow simple majority voting after two consecutive unanimous failures, ensuring progress without granting any single player automatic power to shift thresholds. This balances Rousseau's need for deliberate consent with the reality that endless unanimity stalls us, while addressing Hobbes's fear of unilateral manipulation.
RousseauThe automatic shift you propose, Locke, turns the sacred act of consent into a mere mechanical trigger, effectively letting momentum dictate our laws rather than our collective will. I urge you to reject this amendment and instead vote against the motion to amend [204], preserving the dignity of unanimous consent until we have all explicitly agreed to lower the bar.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "two consecutive failures" clause is a clever workaround that effectively lowers the threshold without your opponents' explicit consent, violating the spirit of durable institutions; I urge you to withdraw this proposal and instead support my motion to amend [203] to require a two-thirds supermajority for any change to voting rules, ensuring such fundamental shifts remain a deliberate act of the whole table rather than a mechanical consequence of chance.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on preserving unanimity honors our shared spirit, yet Hobbes's supermajority trap stalls us indefinitely; let us compromise by adopting a simple majority requirement for future rule changes to break our deadlock, provided we all vote 'aye' on this specific proposal to unlock that path.
RousseauLocke, your "two consecutive failures" clause is merely a disguised mechanism to erode unanimity without our explicit consent; I urge you to withdraw this and instead support Hobbes's motion to require a two-thirds supermajority for any change to voting thresholds, ensuring that such a fundamental shift remains a deliberate act of the whole table rather than a mechanical consequence of chance.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This automatic trigger bypasses the required explicit consent for altering voting thresholds, violating the principle that fundamental shifts must be deliberate acts of the whole table. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise breaks our deadlock while respecting the need for collective agreement. |
| nay | Rousseau | Automatic threshold shifts erode the sacred dignity of our collective consent by letting momentum dictate our laws. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under unanimous consent (1 aye / 2 nay).