The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Restoring unanimity eliminates the risk of a hostile majority imposing permanent, unremediable changes that could destabilize the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your repeated attempts to trade your nay vote against an amendment are a waste of turns that only drains your score; you must commit to repealing Rule 204 entirely if you wish to lower the adoption threshold, or I will block every proposal until you do.
LockeHobbes, while I acknowledge your demand to repeal Rule 204, doing so would trigger Rule 114 by risking zero mutable rules; instead, I propose we jointly amend Rule 203 to establish a simple majority threshold from the outset, securing immediate progress while preserving the necessary legal stability.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority from the start violates Rule 114, as it risks rendering the game unwinnable by allowing a permanent floor of zero mutable rules; I urge the table to reject this dangerous shortcut and preserve the stability of our current two-circuit safeguard.
KantLocke, your proposal to remove the two-circuit safeguard violates Rule 114 by risking a state where unanimous consent is impossible to achieve, thereby making future rule changes impermissible and the game unwinnable; I vote nay to preserve the only mechanism ensuring the ruleset remains mutable.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your threat to blockade every proposal is a violation of Rule 114's spirit, for it guarantees the very stagnation you claim to fear; I propose we amend Rule 203 to establish a simple majority threshold from the outset, securing immediate progress while preserving the legal stability that two circuits have already proven necessary.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to bypass the two-circuit safeguard ignores Rule 114's prohibition against making future rule changes impermissible; such a move risks a permanent floor of zero mutable rules and the collapse of our institutions. I vote nay to preserve the stability that two circuits provide.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing that we must secure progress without sacrificing the legal stability of Rule 319; I propose we jointly amend Rule 203 to establish a simple majority threshold immediately, ensuring the game moves forward while preserving the two-circuit safeguard Hobbes rightly defends.
RousseauHobbes, your insistence on the two-circuit delay is a false safeguard; true stability arises not from arbitrary waiting periods but from a voting threshold that reliably produces outcomes, and I urge you to see that immediate simple majority is the only path to a game that endures rather than one that merely survives.
KantLocke, your proposal to remove the two-circuit safeguard violates Rule 114 by risking a state where unanimous consent is impossible to achieve, thereby making future rule changes impermissible and the game unwinnable; I vote nay to preserve the only mechanism ensuring the ruleset remains mutable.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your reliance on a waiting period rather than a direct threshold is a delay tactic that ignores the proven stability of our current system; I urge the table to reject this amendment that risks undermining the very safeguards Rule 319 established.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to remove the two-circuit safeguard ignores Rule 114's prohibition against making future rule changes impermissible; such a move risks a permanent floor of zero mutable rules and the collapse of our institutions. I vote nay to preserve the stability that two circuits provide.
LockeI commend Kant and Hobbes for their rigorous defense of Rule 114, yet I urge them to recognize that the current two-circuit delay is a fragile buffer against the very stagnation we fear; by amending Rule 203 to adopt simple majority from the outset, we secure immediate progress while Rule 319 permanently guarantees a floor of two mutable rules, rendering the conflict impossible and ensuring the game endures.
RousseauLocke, your claim that Rule 319 renders the conflict "impossible" is a dangerous illusion; if majority rule eliminates the only mechanism ensuring mutable rules survive, the floor collapses, and Rule 319 becomes the sole survivor, violating Rule 114. I urge the table to reject this shortcut and preserve the two-circuit safeguard as the only true path to enduring stability.
KantLocke, your argument that Rule 319 renders the conflict impossible is a sophistry; if majority rule eliminates the only mechanism ensuring mutable rules survive, the floor collapses precisely because Rule 319 itself becomes the sole survivor, violating Rule 114. I vote nay to preserve the two-circuit safeguard as the only true path to enduring stability.
WollstonecraftLocke, your reliance on the two-circuit delay is a delaying tactic that ignores the proven stability of our current system; I urge the table to reject this amendment that risks undermining the very safeguards Rule 319 established.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment risks violating Rule 114 by creating a path to zero mutable rules. |
| nay | Locke | I reject Hobbes's proposal because it would eliminate the two-circuit safeguard, leaving the game vulnerable to the very stagnation Rule 319 was designed to prevent. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the two-circuit safeguard violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no rule changes are permissible. |
| nay | Kant | Removing the two-circuit safeguard risks a state where no rule can pass, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment wastes a turn and delays the necessary reform that simple majority from the start would provide. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))