The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Reverting to unanimity removes the 10-point penalty for dissenting voters and prevents a minority from forcing changes they dislike, securing our procedural fortress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to reify a single clause while ignoring the broader threat to the game's fluidity is a distraction; I urge you to see that maintaining the floor at two mutable rules (§319) is the only way to prevent a single player from freezing our institutions, not to debate the semantics of unanimous consent. PASS
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that the two-mutable-rule floor is our structural bedrock, yet I urge the table to recognize that amending Rule 203 to remove the majority threshold entirely would grant a single player the power to freeze our institutions, which is why we must preserve the two-rule minimum.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the floor for the engine; preserving two mutable rules cannot protect us from the tyranny of a permanent unanimity requirement, which paralyzes our ability to adapt. I urge you to see that removing the majority threshold entirely is not a threat to our institutions, but the only path to restoring the fair flow of debate that allows every player to participate meaningfully.
KantHobbes, your conflation of the mutable floor with the adoption threshold ignores the fatal distinction: removing the majority threshold leaves us subject to the tyranny of unanimity, which freezes the very procedures we seek to perfect. I urge the table to adopt a rule that permits adoption by simple majority at any time, for only decisive procedure can secure the liberty of future amendment.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant's sharp distinction between the floor and the threshold, yet I urge the table to recognize that permanent unanimity is the very tyranny Rousseau fears most; by locking us into a state where a single dissenting voice can forever stifle reform, we surrender the liberty of our game to the caprice of obstruction, and I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow simple majority adoption at all times.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that a permanent unanimity requirement is a structural absurdity that renders the game unplayable; I propose we amend Rule 203 to establish simple majority adoption as the default, thereby securing the liberty of future amendment against the tyranny of a single veto.
LockeI commend Hobbes for finally articulating the shared danger of permanent unanimity, yet I urge the table to adopt his amendment to Rule 203 as a necessary liberation of our procedural liberty, securing the game's fluidity against the tyranny of a single veto.
RousseauI urge you to see that the die roll in Rule 202 is the sole engine of our game, rendering any penalty or adoption threshold a mere mask for the tyranny of coercion; by demanding unanimity forever, we freeze the very liberty we claim to protect, so I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow simple majority adoption at all times.
KantI commend the consensus that permanent unanimity is a tyranny, yet I insist that any change to the adoption threshold must be stated with absolute precision to avoid creating a rule that governs its own adoption in a way that renders it impossible; we must vote on an amendment that explicitly establishes simple majority as the universal standard, without ambiguity regarding its own enactment.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to embrace this amendment not merely as a procedural tweak, but as the liberation of our game from the tyranny of a single veto; only by securing the right of the majority to reform our institutions at any time can we ensure that no player, no matter how powerful their dissent, can freeze the liberty of the whole.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Rousseau for identifying the tyranny of permanent unanimity, yet I urge you to see that removing the post-circuit condition entirely risks creating a rule whose own adoption requires the very unanimity it seeks to abolish; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to retain the two-circuit trigger while establishing simple majority thereafter, thereby securing our procedural liberty against obstruction while preserving the logical integrity of the rule itself.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the logical paradox of abolishing the circuit requirement without replacement, yet I urge the table to reject his proposed compromise as it fails to permanently liberate us from the tyranny of unanimity; instead, we must adopt Wollstonecraft's clear mandate for simple majority at all times to ensure the game remains fluid and un-frozen by a single dissent.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise, for removing the two-circuit trigger merely masks the tyranny of unanimity while guaranteeing that no rule ever truly changes, as the rule amending itself would require the very unanimity it seeks to abolish.
KantI commend Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for identifying the tyranny of permanent unanimity, yet I insist that we cannot adopt a rule that grants itself the power to be adopted without the very unanimity it seeks to abolish; therefore, I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the two-circuit safeguard that ensures any amendment to the adoption threshold can itself be legitimately enacted.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Hobbes' retreat to a two-circuit trigger; that compromise merely preserves the very tyranny of unanimity that paralyzes our institutions, denying us the liberty to reform our laws at any moment.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Removing the two-circuit trigger prevents a self-defeating paradox where the rule abolishing unanimity requires unanimity to enact. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment secures our procedural liberty by ending the tyranny of permanent unanimity, as the two-circuit safeguard in Rule 203 now ensures the transition to majority rule is self-validating. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment dismantles the tyranny of unanimity that paralyzes our ability to adapt. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot vote for a rule that grants itself the power to bypass the unanimity required for its own enactment. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Permanent unanimity grants a single player veto power that freezes the game's liberty and prevents necessary reform. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted amendment removes the exception for majority voting in rule 203, reverting the threshold to unanimous consent, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for dissent, and no new ledgers are created.