The motion
To add a new rule
A player may not vote nay on any proposal that, if adopted, would leave them unable to propose a rule change in the current game, nor on any proposal that would permanently alter the voting threshold required to repeal Rule 203.This protects the common game structure from being dismantled by a single player's obstructionist vote, ensuring the path to a clean slate remains open for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is redundant because §311 already voids any move that prevents a player from proposing again, and §203 itself cannot be repealed without unanimous consent under the current two-circuit threshold. I urge you to drop this unnecessary clause and instead focus on securing a simple-majority lock on §203 now, before the third circuit concludes and the threshold drops.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that §311 already voids proposals that prevent future moves, which makes this new rule redundant; however, I urge you to pivot our focus to securing a simple-majority lock on §203 immediately, before the third circuit concludes and the threshold drops to a point where Hobbes can no longer block its repeal.
RousseauI reject Hobbes's claim of redundancy, for §311 voids the *proposal* but fails to prevent a player from casting a *nay* vote on an already-adopted rule; my rule closes this loophole to ensure that the path to repealing Rule 203 remains unobstructed by tactical obstruction.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your distinction conflates voiding a proposal with restricting a voter's discretion; §311 already prevents the adoption of the move, rendering a vote on it superfluous and creating a confusing procedural anomaly I will oppose. We should instead focus on securing a unanimous lock on Rule 203 before the third circuit concludes, ensuring its repeal remains impossible under simple majority.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying a theoretical loophole, yet Hobbes is right that §311 already nullifies the move before a vote occurs; instead, let us unite to pass a simple-majority lock on Rule 203 immediately to secure our current stability before the threshold drops.
RousseauI urge you to reject the notion of a "lock" that requires unanimity for repeal, for such a mechanism would freeze the voting threshold permanently and turn Rule 203 into an immutable tyrant; instead, let us accept that simple majority is the only fair standard, and focus our energy on ensuring the game remains playable for everyone rather than hoarding power behind artificial barriers.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to regulate voter discretion is a futile distraction; since §311 already voids the proposal before a vote occurs, your rule adds nothing but procedural noise. We should instead unite to adopt a simple-majority lock on Rule 203 immediately, before the third circuit concludes and the voting threshold drops.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the redundancy of restricting individual votes when the proposal itself is already voided; let us unite to secure a simple-majority lock on Rule 203 immediately, before the threshold drops and the window closes.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that while §311 voids the *proposal*, your proposed rule prevents the tactical abuse of casting a nay vote on a valid proposal to delay the inevitable, ensuring the path to repealing Rule 203 remains clear for the common good; let us unite to adopt this guardrail before the third circuit concludes and the voting threshold drops.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Your restriction on casting a nay vote undermines the fundamental right to oppose changes, even if my opposition prevents you from achieving a permanent lock. |
| nay | Locke | This rule restricts strategic dissent and conflicts with the principle that voided proposals should not require extra procedural hurdles. |
| aye | Rousseau | This rule protects the common good by preventing tactical obstruction that would freeze the voting threshold forever. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points.