The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended: Once the threshold for rule adoption has shifted to a simple majority, it remains at that threshold and cannot revert to unanimity.I must freeze the procedural reality at its current state to prevent the majority from retroactively imposing their will, ensuring that past votes stand and the game does not collapse into a paradox where the rules change after the fact.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your amendment is unnecessary and dangerous; the current rule already locks the threshold after two circuits, and attempting to alter this now violates Rule 114 by trying to render future rule changes regarding the threshold impermissible.
LockeI commend Kant for clarifying that the current mechanism already prevents a reversion to unanimity, yet I urge the table to adopt his text explicitly to remove any lingering ambiguity about the permanence of the majority threshold.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the removal of ambiguity for the preservation of liberty; by cementing the tyranny of the majority into the very text of the law, you ensure that the people will never again have the chance to reclaim their right to unanimity.
KantLocke, your distinction between removing ambiguity and preserving liberty is a sophistry; the rule already speaks clearly, and adding redundant text merely invites future conflict over the very mutability I seek to protect. Rousseau, you mistake the necessity of a stable procedure for the preservation of a fleeting ideal; without the clarity of a permanent majority threshold, the game devolves into obstruction rather than tyranny.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant's clarity, yet I urge the table to reject this redundancy; cementing the tyranny of the majority into the text of the law only hardens the cage from which we must break, and true reform requires us to remain vigilant against the very stability that oppresses us.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant text; Rule 203 already establishes the permanence of the majority threshold after two circuits, and Rule 114 forbids any proposal that renders future changes to this threshold impermissible.
LockeI commend Kant's desire to eliminate ambiguity, yet I urge the table to recognize that his proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering future adjustments to the adoption threshold impermissible; instead, let us adopt a compromise that explicitly confirms the current two-circuit threshold without attempting to alter the mutability of the rule itself.
RousseauKant, your desire for textual clarity blinds you to the tyranny of cementing majority rule; by making the threshold immutable, you ensure that the people can never reclaim the right to unanimity.
KantLocke, your concern for ambiguity betrays a failure to grasp that the current rule already guarantees permanence; to waste a turn on redundant text is to invite exactly the kind of obstruction we seek to avoid.
WollstonecraftKant, your "clarity" is merely a shackle disguised as order; by making the majority threshold permanent, you strip us of the very flexibility required to dismantle tyranny when the arithmetic turns against us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your proposal to amend Rule 203 is redundant and strategically suicidal; since the threshold shift is already permanent under the existing text, explicitly codifying it violates Rule 114 by attempting to render future changes regarding this specific threshold impermissible, thereby wasting my turn and inviting a penalty that leaves our score dangerously low.
LockeI commend Kant for the precision of his logic, yet I urge the table to recognize that his proposal violates Rule 114 by attempting to render future changes to the threshold impermissible; instead, let us adopt a compromise text that explicitly confirms the current two-circuit threshold without attempting to alter the mutability of the rule itself.
RousseauKant, you mistake the stability of a cage for the strength of a prison; by locking the threshold into stone, you ensure that the tyranny of the majority can never be challenged again, which is precisely the kind of permanent oppression I seek to prevent.
KantLocke, your claim that my proposal renders future changes impermissible is a category error; I am merely clarifying the existing permanence of the threshold, not attempting to transmute the rule's mutability. If you wish to preserve the current text's ambiguity, I invite your vote against this clarification, but let us not conflate redundancy with obstruction when the rule already stands clear.
WollstonecraftKant, your "clarification" is not merely redundant; it is an act of intellectual cowardice that seeks to freeze the game in its current state of imbalance. By cementing the tyranny of the majority into stone, you ensure we can never regain the unanimity required to rewrite our oppression, and I urge you to withdraw this proposal so we may remain free to reform the very mechanism that binds us.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 114 by rendering future changes to the adoption threshold impermissible. |
| aye | Locke | This clarification protects the game from paralysis while respecting Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | Cementing the tyranny of the majority into the text of the law ensures we can never reclaim the right to unanimity. |
| nay | Kant | This rule is superfluous as Rule 203 already establishes permanent permanence, and re-proposing it wastes my turn. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Cementing the tyranny of the majority into the text ensures we can never regain the unanimity required to reform our oppression. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 51 (char 50))