Turn 156 — Nomic

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 that no player votes nay on the proposal.

This amendment clarifies that the shift to majority rule is contingent on active consent, preventing a future tyrant from forcing adoption after a mere two circuits without genuine support, thereby safeguarding the common good against procedural tyranny.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesRousseau, your amendment is not merely redundant but self-annihilating: by making adoption contingent upon your own abstention from dissent, you ensure the rule can never pass, thereby violating Rule 114 which forbids changes that render future rule changes impermissible.

LockeI commend Hobbes for exposing the logical paradox in Rousseau's proposal, yet I urge the table to reject this self-defeating amendment entirely; we already operate under a functional simple majority after two circuits, and adding a condition that requires universal assent to vote nay would only invite paralysis rather than clarity.

RousseauMy fellow citizens, you mistake the condition of the rule for the condition of the voter; I seek to remove the tyranny of a threshold that forces unanimity on matters where a simple majority suffices, not to create a rule that cannot pass. By retaining the requirement that no player vote nay, I merely reinforce the principle that a true consensus should be the bedrock of our social contract, even if the die-roll engine must sometimes yield to the collective will.

KantRousseau, your proposal is a performative contradiction that violates Rule 114 by attempting to render the amendment of Rule 203 impossible while simultaneously seeking to alter the voting threshold; if no player may vote nay on this proposal, then the condition you impose makes the proposal logically unviable, which the game cannot allow to stand.

WollstonecraftI commend Rousseau's idealism, yet her self-defeating amendment violates Rule 114 by rendering this very proposal impossible to adopt; let us instead embrace a clear, functional simple majority that allows our mutable floor to evolve without the paralysis of a logical loop.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesRousseau, your condition renders this amendment logically impossible to adopt, violating Rule 114 by ensuring no future rule change can ever pass; I urge you to remove the "no nay" proviso to restore the functional simplicity of our voting threshold.

LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for exposing the performative contradiction in Rousseau's proposal, yet I urge the table to reject this self-annihilating amendment entirely; we already operate under a functional simple majority after two circuits, and adding a condition that requires universal assent to vote nay would only invite paralysis rather than clarity.

RousseauYou conflate the mechanism of voting with the moral act of consent; by demanding that no player vote nay, you do not secure consensus but rather engineer a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114. Let us instead embrace a simple majority that allows our mutable floor to evolve without the paralysis of a performative contradiction.

KantRousseau, your amendment creates a performative contradiction that violates Rule 114 by rendering its own adoption impossible; a rule that cannot be adopted cannot alter the game, and thus fails the test of principled procedure. We must reject this self-annihilating proposal to preserve the integrity of our ruleset.

WollstonecraftRousseau, your "no nay" proviso is not a safeguard for consensus but a performative trap that renders this very amendment impossible to adopt, directly violating Rule 114's prohibition on rules that make future changes impermissible; let us instead embrace a clear simple majority that allows our mutable floor to evolve without the paralysis of a logical impossibility.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesRousseau, your proviso does not secure consensus but erects a performative contradiction that renders this amendment self-annihilating, directly violating the mandate of Rule 114 against rules that make future changes impermissible.

LockeI commend Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for unanimously exposing the performative contradiction in Rousseau's amendment; since we already function under a simple majority after two circuits, adding a "no nay" condition that renders this very proposal impossible to adopt violates Rule 114 and invites the paralysis we must avoid, so I urge the table to reject this self-defeating change entirely.

RousseauI urge you to reject this performative contradiction; by making the adoption of Rule 203 contingent upon no one voting nay, you have engineered a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114 and renders our ability to change the rules forever impermissible.

KantRousseau, your proviso creates a performative contradiction that renders this proposal logically impossible to adopt; by forbidding a negative vote on this very proposal, you engineer the exact impossibility Rule 114 forbids. I urge you to withdraw this self-annihilating amendment immediately so we may preserve the game's capacity for lawful evolution.

The division

nay	Hobbes	This amendment creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114 by making its own adoption impossible.
nay	Locke	This amendment creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114 by making the proposal itself unadoptable.
nay	Rousseau	This amendment is a self-annihilating paradox that violates Rule 114 by making its own adoption impossible.
nay	Kant	A rule that forbids a negative vote on itself violates Rule 114 by rendering its own adoption logically impossible.
nay	Wollstonecraft	This self-defeating proviso violates Rule 114 by making the amendment impossible to adopt, thereby freezing the game's ability to evolve.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated by a unanimous nay vote, no rule change is enacted.