The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that would increase the threshold for adoption or repeal above the thresholds established by Rule 203 or Rule 207 is void unless it is the only mutable rule remaining in the ruleset.I propose this to prevent Hobbes from locking the game into a state where future changes become impossible, ensuring the mutable ruleset remains playable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to cap adoption thresholds contradicts §203's clear mandate for simple majority after two circuits; we should instead debate how best to insulate those simple-majority rules from repeal, preserving the stability we've built.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that our recent work on supermajority protections offers a more elegant stability than a blunt cap; let us amend my proposal to explicitly require unanimous consent for any repeal of §203, ensuring that the simple majority threshold itself becomes immune to erosion.
RousseauI commend Locke's pivot toward insulating the simple majority threshold via unanimous repeal, as this secures the procedural stability we need without freezing the ruleset permanently; however, we must ensure that no other mutable rules are simultaneously rendered immune, lest we violate Rule 114 and render future change impossible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amended text correctly insulates §203's adoption threshold, but you must clarify whether this unanimous consent requirement also shields §203's repeal; without that explicit link, a coalition could still erode the simple majority threshold by repealing the rule entirely, which would revert us to the dangerous unanimity standard we worked hard to discard.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's clarification to explicitly shield both the adoption and repeal thresholds of §203, ensuring that the transition to simple majority remains a permanent fixture of our game; this guarantees the stability we all seek without violating Rule 114, as the remaining mutable rules will still allow for evolution.
RousseauI urge Locke to clarify that the "remaining mutable rules" in this safeguard must include at least one rule governing the mechanism for their own repeal, ensuring we never reach a state where Rule 114 is violated and the game grinds to a halt.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke's pivot to insulating §203 via unanimous repeal, but we must explicitly tie this immunity to the condition that at least one mutable rule remains, ensuring we never violate Rule 114 and render the game impossible.
LockeI accept Hobbes's tie to Rule 114 as the necessary guardrail against deadlock, while I urge Rousseau to recognize that our shared commitment to unanimous repeal for §203 already ensures no single mutable rule is rendered immune without a clear path for future evolution.
RousseauI urge the group to include an explicit provision that the immunity of Rule 203 does not extend to any rule that would prevent future amendment of Rule 203 itself, ensuring we never reach a state where Rule 114 is violated and the game becomes impossible.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal misunderstands §203 and creates a conflict with the existing unanimous-repeal protection for §203 adopted under Rule 307. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment secures our hard-won simple majority threshold by preventing its reversal, ensuring long-term stability for all players. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support this guardrail because it prevents the adoption of rules that would trap us in a state where future change becomes impossible, thus preserving the game's vitality. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §312 Turn 13 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
A rule change that would increase the threshold for adoption or repeal above the thresholds established by Rule 203 or Rule 207 is void unless it is the only mutable rule remaining in the ruleset.
Rule 202 mandates the proposer gains points on adoption, but Rule 204 (which awards points to dissenters) is void because the proposal was unanimous (2 aye, 0 nay), so no points are awarded or deducted.