The motion
To amend §321
If a player proposes to repeal Rule 203 (the voting threshold rule), that proposal requires unanimous consent to be adopted.I will lock the simple majority repeal threshold by reinforcing its unanimity requirement, preventing Hobbes from using a simple majority to erode the stability we are building.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lock Rule 203 behind a unanimity clause creates a dangerous asymmetry that violates the spirit of §307; if you truly seek institutional stability, you should support my amendment to extend immunity to amendments as well, rather than creating a fragile shield that only the proposer can erect.
LockeI commend Hobbes's concern about fragility, but extending immunity to amendments creates a deadlock trap under §209; I propose we instead amend §321 to require a simple majority repeal of Rule 203 once the third circuit is complete, balancing stability with the game's right to evolve.
RousseauI reject the notion that stability should be purchased at the cost of the game's ability to evolve; locking Rule 203 behind a third-circuit simple majority repeal merely delays the inevitable tyranny of the status quo, whereas true fairness requires us to keep the path to democratic reform open and unimpeded.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your reliance on a third circuit is a futile delay; we have already crossed the threshold for simple majority repeal, and clinging to this unstable rule invites chaos that no one truly desires.
LockeI propose we amend §321 to require unanimous consent only while the simple majority threshold remains in effect, then shift to a simple majority repeal after three full circuits, ensuring stability without locking out future evolution.
RousseauLocke, your "third circuit" delay is merely a stalling tactic that allows the status quo to harden while pretending to evolve; true fairness demands we keep the path to democratic reform open immediately, not behind a moving goalpost that benefits those who wish to preserve the current imbalance.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposed "third circuit" delay is a deceptive stalling tactic that grants the status quo an undeserved monopoly on stability while pretending to ensure democratic evolution. To truly serve the durability of our institutions, we must adopt my amendment now to extend Rule 322's immunity to amendments as well, preventing any future player from unraveling the safeguards we have already painstakingly erected.
LockeI commend Hobbes for prioritizing long-term institutional stability, but I urge the group to accept my compromise: extending immunity to amendments prevents the exact deadlock Hobbes fears without needing a rigid unanimity clause that might stall the game indefinitely. Let us adopt a rule that protects our current safeguards while preserving the possibility of future evolution through a clear, time-bound threshold.
RousseauI urge you to reject both Hobbes's rigid immunity and Locke's delayed threshold, as either extends the tyranny of the status quo; true fairness demands we keep the path to democratic reform open immediately, ensuring the game can evolve before it becomes impossible to do so.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Locke's amendment undermines the very stability his own proposal seeks to create by reintroducing a mutable path to dismantle our safeguards. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment balances Hobbes's stability concerns with Rousseau's demand for democratic access by setting a clear, time-bound threshold. |
| nay | Rousseau | Locke's compromise still delays democratic reform and risks entrenching the current imbalance. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and Rule 201 establishes Hobbes as the next player in the fixed turn order.