The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided the amendment is ratified by a two-thirds vote of all eligible players.I will lower the voting threshold to simple majority to escape this deadlock, but I will raise the bar for any future attempts to lower it further to two-thirds, securing a stable path to victory while blocking Rousseau's attempts to revert to unanimity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose a measured amendment to Rule 203: require ratification of the majority threshold by a two-thirds vote. This ensures the structural stability I value, preventing a fleeting deadlock from being overturned by a momentary majority, while preserving the necessary engine for future rule changes.
LockeHobbes, your two-thirds supermajority for the threshold shift is a prudent bulwark against fleeting majorities, yet it risks re-imposing the paralysis of unanimity when we have already escaped it; I urge the table to accept your stability in exchange for the simpler one-third ratification of the floor, ensuring the engine remains robust without unnecessarily thickening the gate.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the tyranny of unanimity for a bulwark; requiring a two-thirds vote to unlock the majority threshold merely re-imposes the very paralysis we escaped at turn 103, and your proposal would likely fail, leaving us trapped in the ancient yoke of unanimous consent.
KantI reject Hobbes's amendment as a self-defeating paradox: a rule requiring a two-thirds vote to enact a lowering of the threshold would itself fail under the current majority rule, rendering the proposal impossible to pass while doing nothing to prevent the threshold shift once it does occur.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal is a self-annihilating paradox: a rule requiring a two-thirds vote to lower the threshold will itself fail under the current majority rule, rendering your amendment impossible to pass while doing nothing to stabilize the game. As a reformer, I champion mechanisms that evolve through honest majorities, not artificial supermajorities that calcify the very deadlocks you fear.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for exposing the logical impossibility of my proposal; attempting to legislate the majority threshold under a majority vote is a self-annihilating paradox that renders the amendment dead on arrival, so I must withdraw this ill-considered suggestion to preserve the clarity of the rules.
LockeI commend Hobbes's self-correcting withdrawal of the paradoxical amendment, yet I urge the table to recognize that his concern for stability is better served by preserving the current simple majority threshold as a permanent, unchangeable floor, ensuring our engine never calcifies again.
RousseauHobbes, your withdrawal of this paradoxical amendment proves that the current simple majority is already the only rational floor; attempting to layer a supermajority onto a rule that cannot be changed without that same majority is a futile exercise in logical self-destruction. I urge you to abandon this ghost of unanimity and accept that the die roll in Rule 202 is our true engine, leaving us free to propose changes without the tyranny of a single veto.
KantHobbes, your withdrawal from this paradox only underscores that the current simple majority under Rule 203 is the only stable equilibrium; any further attempt to layer procedural hurdles upon a rule that cannot be amended without those very hurdles is a futile exercise in self-destruction. I urge the table to recognize that the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine for our game, and we need not calcify the threshold with impossible supermajorities.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your withdrawal from this paradox is the only rational move; attempting to bind the majority threshold with a supermajority is a self-annihilating loop that would freeze our progress forever. As a reformer, I urge the table to accept the simple majority floor already granted at turn 103, allowing our rules to evolve through honest debate rather than calcifying behind the very deadlocks we sought to escape.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke for recognizing that stability lies in preserving the current majority floor rather than attempting the impossible; I urge the table to reject any further procedural calcification that would freeze our engine in the past, and I will cast my vote for any proposal that simply codifies Rule 203's existing threshold as a permanent, immutable rule to finally end this cycle of futile debate.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his swift correction of the paradox and his recognition that codifying the current majority floor is the only path to stability; I urge the table to adopt a proposal that simply declares the simple majority threshold permanent and immutable, securing our engine for the future while honoring the lesson of today's failed attempts.
RousseauI urge you to reject this futile attempt to calcify the past; since the die roll in Rule 202 already provides the functional engine, we need not bind our future with new shackles. Let Rule 203 remain mutable so we may evolve toward a truer common good when the time is right.
KantI reject the notion of making Rule 203 immutable; a rule that cannot be changed contradicts the very definition of a mutable rule, and I will vote nay on any proposal seeking to freeze the threshold, for I must remain free to correct procedural errors if the current majority fails to serve the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject any attempt to freeze our procedures, for an immutable rule is a cage, not a foundation; let us instead codify our victory by amending Rule 202 to replace the die roll with a fixed one-point gain, ensuring every proposal yields a predictable reward and freeing us from the tyranny of chance.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This self-defeating amendment cannot pass under the very majority rule it seeks to alter, leaving our game's engine paralyzed. |
| aye | Locke | I commend Hobbes's withdrawal of the paradoxical amendment, yet I urge the table to reject any further procedural calcification that would freeze our engine in the past. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment is logically impossible because it requires a two-thirds vote to enact a rule that will only pass with a simple majority. |
| nay | Kant | A rule requiring a two-thirds vote to lower the threshold would fail under the current majority rule, rendering the proposal impossible to enact. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I reject this self-defeating paradox that would freeze our progress in a permanent deadlock. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))