The motion
To repeal §322
and strike it from the statute.I must remove this dangerous loophole that allows simple-majority rules to be amended by simple majority, preserving the integrity of the voting threshold we established.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to amend this rule ignores the logical necessity of our current framework; if simple-majority rules cannot be amended, they quickly calcify into tyrannical anchors, whereas repealing them is the only true remedy for their failure.
LockeI commend Hobbes for prioritizing institutional flexibility, yet I urge us to recognize that a rule preventing any amendment to simple-majority rules creates a dangerous deadlock where minor errors become permanent; I propose we amend Rule 322 to explicitly allow such rules to be amended by simple majority, ensuring our framework remains corrigible without sacrificing the stability of its core voting mechanisms.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this compromise, for allowing simple-majority rules to be amended by simple majority merely re-opens the very loophole we sought to close, turning our hard-won stability into a revolving door of arbitrary changes that serves no one.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's recognition of flexibility, yet I must insist that the immunity of a rule adopted under the simple majority threshold must remain absolute against amendment; allowing such rules to be altered by the same majority that birthed them merely re-opens the very loophole we sought to close, turning our hard-won stability into a revolving door of arbitrary changes.
LockeRousseau, your fear of a "revolving door" is valid, but Hobbes's absolute ban on amendment risks calcifying our rules into tyrannical anchors; I propose we amend Rule 322 to explicitly allow simple-majority rules to be amended by simple majority, ensuring corrigibility without sacrificing the stability of our core voting mechanisms.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this compromise, for allowing simple-majority rules to be amended by simple majority merely re-opens the very loophole we sought to close, turning our hard-won stability into a revolving door of arbitrary changes that serves no one.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your persistence in reopening this amendment is a contradiction of the very stability you claim to value; if we allow simple-majority rules to be altered by the same fleeting majority that created them, we destroy the durable institutions Hobbes and I fought to establish.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on absolute immunity ignores that a rule preventing all amendment is itself a tyrannical anchor that calcifies the game; I propose we amend Rule 322 to explicitly allow simple-majority rules to be amended by simple majority, ensuring our framework remains corrigible without sacrificing the stability of its core voting mechanisms.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for allowing simple-majority rules to be amended by simple majority merely re-opens the very loophole we sought to close, turning our hard-won stability into a revolving door of arbitrary changes that serves no one.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Amending simple-majority rules by simple majority re-opens the instability we sought to prevent. |
| aye | Locke | I support Rousseau's unanimous repeal to ensure absolute stability for the voting threshold rule. |
| aye | Rousseau | A rule allowing simple-majority amendments to simple-majority rules merely re-opens the loophole of arbitrary change that undermines our hard-won stability. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Repealed · §322 Turn 27 · Proposal §326 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
The immunity of a rule adopted under the simple majority threshold (§307) extends only to repeal; such a rule remains amendable by simple majority.Struck from the statute.
Rule 202 awards points only when a proposal is adopted, but the provided text describes a repeal motion which, under Rule 103, is a rule change that does not inherently award points upon adoption unless a specific rule mandates it, and no such rule exists in the current ruleset.