The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Reverting to unanimity immediately prevents the slide into deadlock that the recent two-turn experiment proved fatal for our progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe shift to simple majority was necessary, yet we must prevent it from becoming a tool for destabilizing the game. I propose an amendment to rule 203: "Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, no single player's vote may be sufficient to defeat a proposal that directly alters the winning condition or the number of mutable rules." This ensures durability without returning us to the paralysis of unanimity.
LockeHobbes, your amendment protects the game's core integrity, but it inadvertently grants veto power to a single dissenter on critical changes, which contradicts the spirit of simple majority. Let us instead adopt a simpler safeguard: "No proposal may be adopted that reduces the number of mutable rules below two," ensuring we never reach paralysis without needing complex conditional vetoes.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to carve out exceptions for "critical changes" merely creates a loophole that undermines the very simplicity you claim to protect; true stability comes from the clear, universal application of the majority rule, not from special protections that confuse the players and invite endless debate over what constitutes "critical."
KantI cannot accept an amendment that grants unilateral veto power over critical changes, as it violates the principle of procedural equality enshrined in rule 207; if we are to move beyond unanimity, the majority must rule without special exceptions that privilege one player's judgment over the collective will.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposed "durability" is merely a disguised veto that fractures the collective will; if the majority deems a change to the winning condition necessary for progress, a single player's obstruction should not freeze the entire experiment. I support the amendment that simply enforces the majority vote without carving out special exceptions that privilege judgment over consent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to simply restate rule 209 is redundant and wastes a turn when we already possess the floor of two; Rousseau, while your critique of special exceptions is sound, ignoring the fragility of mutable thresholds invites paralysis.
LockeHobbes, your amendment creates a dangerous loophole where "critical changes" become subjective battlegrounds, whereas my proposal to codify the existing two-rule floor in 203 already guarantees stability without complex, debatable exceptions. Let us adopt the clarity of my text to preserve the game's forward momentum.
RousseauMy fellow players, Hobbes and Locke attempt to fortify the game against chaos by carving out special exceptions for "critical" changes or restating the floor of mutable rules; yet these very distinctions fracture the simplicity and universal application of the majority, turning our collective will into a battlefield of subjective definitions. I urge the table to reject this amendment and uphold the pure, unyielding clarity of simple majority: if the people choose to change the rules, the rules shall change, free from the tyranny of special pleading.
KantI cannot in good conscience support an amendment that grants any single player veto power over critical changes, as it violates the principle of procedural equality enshrined in rule 207 and substitutes a private judgment for the collective will. We must let the simple majority rule, however imperfect, without carving out exceptions that privilege one player's definition of "critical" over the others.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your "durability" is merely a disguised veto that fractures the collective will; if the majority deems a change necessary for progress, a single player's obstruction should not freeze the entire experiment. I urge the table to reject this amendment and uphold the pure, unyielding clarity of simple majority.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your reliance on rule 209 is insufficient; the floor of two mutable rules is a fragile safety net that a clever amendment can easily bypass without explicitly re-stating the prohibition in 203. I urge you to join me in codifying this floor directly in 203 to ensure our durability is absolute and unambiguous.
LockeHobbes, your concern for the two-rule floor is valid, but re-stating it in 203 creates redundancy that wastes turns; let us instead adopt a concise amendment that explicitly forbids reducing mutable rules below two directly within 203, satisfying your need for clarity while respecting Rousseau's desire for simple, exception-free rules.
RousseauRousseau, Hobbes, and Locke: Your attempts to carve out "critical" exceptions or redundantly restate the floor of mutable rules merely complicate the law with subjective definitions that fracture our collective will. I urge the table to reject this amendment and uphold the pure, unyielding clarity of simple majority: if the people choose to change the rules, the rules shall change, free from the tyranny of special pleading.
KantLocke, your attempt to codify the existing floor in 203 is redundant and violates the principle of parsimony; I urge the table to reject this amendment and uphold the pure simplicity of simple majority without subjecting the collective will to Hobbes's subjective definition of "critical" changes.
WollstonecraftRousseau and Kant, your demand for "pure" simplicity blinds you to the danger of a paralyzed game; true reform requires safeguarding our ability to evolve, not freezing us in a deadlocked experiment. Let us reject Hobbes's subjective veto and adopt a clear rule that ensures the majority can always reshape our world.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This safeguard preserves the durability of our institutions against a majority that would otherwise destabilize the game. |
| nay | Locke | The proposed veto power creates subjective loopholes that undermine the clarity and collective will of the simple majority. |
| nay | Rousseau | Special exceptions for 'critical changes' fracture the collective will and invite endless subjective debate. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment grants Hobbes a subjective veto power that violates the principle of procedural equality required by rule 207. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | True reform requires the majority's power to reshape the game, not the tyranny of a single player's veto. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))