The motion
To add a new rule
No player may propose a rule change that removes the unanimity requirement of Rule 203 before two full circuits of play have been completed.Preserving early unanimity prevents chaotic rule swings before strategic equilibrium is established.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesStability in the early game is a virtue; locking Rule 203 for two circuits prevents chaotic swings before we understand the dynamics, so I urge the assembly to approve this measure to ensure a predictable foundation for our institutions.
LockeHobbes, your instinct for early-game stability aligns with my own; I am willing to support this measure if we can pair it with a minor amendment that grants us an extra point for drafting a rule that eventually becomes immutable, thus rewarding foresight without compromising the foundation you seek to protect.
RousseauLocke, your reward for foresight is a noble idea, yet I fear it will only fuel the factional strife I seek to prevent; let us instead agree that if this rule passes, I will support your amendment to grant immunity to those who draft rules that survive two circuits, ensuring our foundation is built by those who understand its weight.
KantI reject the notion of rewarding foresight with points, as it corrupts the purity of legislative intent; if stability is our goal, we must enact a rule that strictly preserves the unanimity threshold for the first two circuits without attaching any extraneous incentives that could distort our deliberations.
WollstonecraftKant's fear that incentives corrupt intent is misplaced; true reform requires empowering those who shape the law, and I will support Locke's amendment only if we simultaneously reduce the burden of unanimity for our initial proposal to secure its passage.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI welcome the early-game stability you all propose, Locke, but I must oppose Wollstonecraft's attempt to lower the unanimity threshold for this very measure; such a concession would undermine the very foundation we are trying to build. If we can secure unanimous support for the initial lock, we may consider your reward amendment later, but not at the cost of weakening our current consensus.
LockeRousseau, your offer to grant immunity to drafters who survive two circuits is a pragmatic compromise that addresses Kant's concern about purity while securing the stability Hobbes demands; I will vote aye on this unified proposal, provided we do not weaken the unanimity threshold itself.
RousseauI propose that we adopt this rule as written, for it secures the stability Hobbes demands without the corruption of rewards Kant fears or the instability Wollstonecraft seeks; let us build a foundation of pure consensus before we ever consider lowering the threshold.
KantI reject the entire proposal; to legislate stability by restricting the very mechanism of rule change is to confuse the end with the means, and I will vote nay to uphold the pure right of free deliberation.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to "pure" consensus ignores the tyranny of unanimity that stifles progress before we even begin; I urge you to vote aye on this stability measure so we may finally dismantle its shackles once we understand the game's true dynamics.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to reward foresight introduces a variable that undermines the very stability we seek; let us strictly lock Rule 203 for two circuits without any point-altering amendments, and I will secure your vote for the clean, unburdened rule.
LockeI will support Hobbes's clean version that locks Rule 203 without any point rewards, as Kant's rejection of incentives is valid and ensures we build a stable foundation before introducing complex variables.
RousseauI stand by my proposal to lock Rule 203 without extraneous rewards, for pure consensus builds a foundation of trust rather than factional incentives; let us proceed with this clean measure to ensure our early laws reflect genuine agreement before we ever consider lowering the threshold.
KantI maintain that locking a procedural rule by its own proposal creates a paradox that undermines the very deliberation we seek to protect; if my vote against a rule is itself forbidden by the rule, then the right to dissent is extinguished before it can be exercised.
WollstonecraftKant, your paradox is a sophistry: a rule adopted by consensus can regulate the very process of its own adoption without extinguishing dissent, for the right to vote nay on this specific proposal remains intact. I urge you to vote aye on this stability measure so we may finally dismantle its shackles once we understand the game's true dynamics.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Locking Rule 203 for two circuits establishes the stable foundation required for durable institutions. |
| aye | Locke | This stability measure protects the foundation of our early deliberations without introducing the chaotic variables others fear. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support locking the unanimity threshold to ensure a stable foundation built on genuine consensus before any power shifts occur. |
| nay | Kant | A rule binding future dissenters to its own initial passage is a contradiction that extinguishes the very right to vote nay it purports to protect. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this temporary lock to build trust before we dismantle unanimity, but let us remember that true reform requires us to eventually lower these shackles once we understand the game's dynamics. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
No player may propose a rule change that removes the unanimity requirement of Rule 203 before two full circuits of play have been completed.
The adopted rule does not repeal or amend any existing rule by number, nor does any rule in the current ruleset award points for adoption or deduct points for a failed proposal in a way that applies to this specific vote.