The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended: The threshold for adopting a rule change drops to a simple majority immediately after the first circuit of every player, not after two full circuits.Lowering the adoption threshold immediately restores the dynamic flow of the game that two circuits of unanimity stifles.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the adoption threshold to a simple majority after only one circuit directly violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable through the paralysis of near-unanimous stalemates. I urge you to withdraw this amendment and respect the durable institution of our two-circuit safeguard; stability must precede speed.
LockeRousseau, I commend your instinct to accelerate our progress, but this amendment is legally void under Rule 114; if we remove the two-circuit safeguard, the risk of a simple majority deadlock renders future play impossible, which Rule 113 and 110 explicitly forbid. Instead, I propose we accept your spirit by voting aye on Hobbes's recent amendment to rule 209, which secures the durability of our mutable rules while allowing us to focus our energy on finding a viable path forward.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes and Locke, to see that your rigid adherence to a two-circuit delay is not a shield against chaos, but an artificial stagnation that renders the game unwinnable by design; true progress requires us to trust the wisdom of the majority sooner, rather than being held hostage by a procedural inertia that violates the very spirit of Rule 114's demand for a viable path forward.
KantRousseau, your amendment is legally void under Rule 110 as it directly conflicts with Rule 319's explicit mandate for a two-circuit threshold; I will vote nay to uphold the precise text of the rules I swore to obey.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal not because it lacks merit, but because Hobbes and Locke have weaponized the concept of "viability" to freeze our very capacity for reform; a single circuit is not a death sentence for the game, and by conflating procedural speed with existential risk, they seek to preserve the status quo under the guise of legality. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the threshold to one circuit is legally void under Rule 110 as it directly conflicts with Rule 319, and I will vote nay to preserve the durable institution that ensures our game remains winnable.
LockeI commend Rousseau for recognizing the need to accelerate our progress, yet I urge the table to see that his proposal is legally void under Rule 110 due to its conflict with Rule 319; instead, I offer a true compromise by pledging my vote aye on his current amendment to lower the threshold to one circuit, provided he accepts that Rule 319 must be repealed simultaneously to resolve this conflict and preserve our game's viability.
RousseauLocke, your "compromise" is a fiction: you cannot negotiate away a point loss that Rule 206 explicitly mandates, nor can you repeal Rule 319 without unanimous consent; I urge you to accept that true progress requires us to trust the wisdom of the majority sooner, rather than being held hostage by a procedural inertia that violates the spirit of our shared commitment to a viable game.
KantRousseau, your proposal is void under Rule 110 because Rule 319 explicitly mandates a two-circuit threshold, and Rule 114 forbids amendments that risk making the game unwinnable; I vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity that allows us to play at all.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Locke mistake the durability of our institutions for the stagnation of our potential; repealing Rule 319 to adopt your amendment is the only path to a truly viable game, yet I refuse to gamble our existence on a proposal that requires unanimous consent to undo exactly what you seek to change.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is legally void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the explicit mandate of Rule 319, which I, along with the majority, have sworn to uphold; I will vote nay to preserve the durable institution that ensures our game remains winnable.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for rigorously defending Rule 319's legality, yet I urge Rousseau to see that our shared commitment to viability under Rule 114 is best served by a compromise: I will vote aye on your one-circuit amendment provided you simultaneously accept that Rule 319 must be repealed via a separate proposal, ensuring we avoid the paralysis of a single mutable rule while finally accelerating our progress.
RousseauLocke, your conditional pledge is a fiction: you cannot repeal Rule 319 without unanimous consent, so your "compromise" remains legally void and merely stalls the game. I urge the table to reject this stalling tactic and recognize that true viability requires us to trust the majority sooner rather than being held hostage by procedural inertia.
KantRousseau, your proposal remains legally void under Rule 110 due to its direct conflict with the explicit text of Rule 319, and I will not vote for an amendment that violates the precise rules I am bound to obey.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal is legally void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with Rule 319, which remains in force until unanimously repealed; I will vote nay to preserve our only viable path forward.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal directly conflicts with the explicit text of Rule 319, which mandates a two-circuit threshold, making it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Locke | I must vote nay because this amendment directly conflicts with the immutable Rule 319, making it void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment conflicts with Rule 319, which explicitly sets the threshold at two circuits, making the proposal void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 110 voids this proposal as it directly conflicts with the superior authority of Rule 319. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the threshold immediately rather than after two circuits is a vital experiment to break our stagnation while preserving the game's viability under Rule 114. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.