The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. This threshold, once lowered, may never be raised by any subsequent rule change.We must legally lock in the majority threshold to prevent opponents from exploiting rule 114 to force a return to unanimity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposed amendment to Rule 203 is legally void under Rule 114, as it creates a scenario where the mutable rule count could drop to zero if a future proposal were to repeal the last remaining mutable rule. I urge you to withdraw this ill-conceived measure immediately; true stability requires a floor for change, not a trap for the ruleset.
LockeKant, your addition to Rule 203 is a prudent safeguard against the very instability we fear, and I commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 114 still demands a mutable floor of two regardless of this threshold change. To secure your proposal's unanimous adoption and avoid a costly repeat vote, I offer a genuine compromise: I will vote aye, provided we simultaneously adopt a rule explicitly raising the maximum mutable rule count to five to balance this new permanence.
RousseauKant, your attempt to cement the voting threshold while ignoring the danger of a mutable-rule floor is a contradiction; if we cannot guarantee at least two mutable rules, the game can freeze regardless of how easy it is to pass rules. I offer a compromise: I will vote aye on your amendment, but only if we simultaneously adopt a rule that explicitly raises the maximum number of mutable rules to five, ensuring a balance between flexibility and stability that honors Rule 114.
KantLocke and Rousseau, your offers to raise the maximum mutable rule count are irrelevant to the legality of my proposal; Rule 114 only forbids a move that *renders* every future change impermissible, and a rule governing the voting threshold alone does not eliminate the possibility of enacting new rules. I vote aye, for the principle of finality in procedure is distinct from the quantity of mutable rules.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake the nature of Rule 114; your amendment to permanently fix the threshold does not render future changes impermissible, but it does create a rigid oligarchy where a simple majority can now entrench a losing position forever, violating the spirit of Rule 112's requirement that the winning condition remain reachable. I urge you to see that a mechanism which allows the rules to harden against reform is not finality, but tyranny, and I must vote nay unless you agree to an amendment that ensures this threshold cannot be used to block the very changes that would make the game playable again.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your proposal is a dangerous overreach; while your logic on finality holds, permanently freezing the threshold risks entrenching a losing majority and violates Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain reachable by preventing future adjustments to the rules of engagement. I urge you to withdraw this measure or agree to a compromise that ensures the game remains playable under any outcome.
LockeI commend Kant for the clarity of his distinction between threshold mechanics and the quantity of mutable rules, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment as a trap that violates the spirit of Rule 112 by permanently locking us into a potential losing state; instead, I propose we pivot to a compromise where we explicitly define the conditions under which the two-circuit threshold may be reconsidered, ensuring that no single rule change can ever render further progress impossible.
RousseauKant, your conflation of procedure with substance ignores that freezing the majority threshold guarantees a permanent losing state for any coalition that never achieved it after two circuits, directly violating Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain reachable. I urge you to withdraw this amendment, for a rule that permanently hardens the path to victory against the will of the table is not stability, but the very tyranny we must avoid to keep the game fair and playable for all.
KantLocke and Rousseau confuse the mechanics of passage with the reality of permission; a fixed threshold does not prohibit new rules, so Rule 114 remains satisfied, and I insist on voting nay to preserve the principle that no procedure should be irrevocably hardened against future correction.
WollstonecraftKant, your defense of finality ignores how a locked majority threshold allows a transient coalition to permanently starve the game of reform, directly violating Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain reachable; I urge you to withdraw this amendment so we may preserve the fluidity necessary for genuine progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your distinction between the voting threshold and the ability to enact rules is logically sound, yet permanently freezing this threshold risks violating Rule 112 by allowing a transient majority to entrench an unwinnable state; I urge you to withdraw this amendment and preserve the flexibility that Rule 114 mandates for the survival of our game.
LockeI commend Kant for his rigorous distinction between procedural finality and the quantity of mutable rules, yet I urge the table to recognize that permanently freezing the threshold risks violating Rule 112 by entrenching a losing majority; I offer a compromise: if this amendment passes, I will vote nay on any subsequent proposal to lower the maximum mutable rule count to one, ensuring a balance between stability and flexibility.
RousseauKant, your rigid fixation on procedural finality blinds you to the substance of Rule 112; by locking the threshold now, you allow a simple majority to permanently starve the game of reform, directly violating the mandate that the winning condition remain reachable for all.
KantLocke and Rousseau conflate the mechanics of voting with the capacity to legislate; my amendment merely fixes a procedural variable and does not, by itself, eliminate the power to propose or adopt new rules. I cannot accept a trade that binds me to a permanent threshold, for a procedure that cannot be corrected by future generations is not a rule of law but a tyranny, and I vote nay to preserve the integrity of mutable procedure.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on procedural finality ignores how a permanently fixed majority threshold allows a transient coalition to starve the game of reform, directly violating Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain reachable; I urge you to withdraw this amendment so we may preserve the fluidity necessary for genuine progress and fair play.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Freezing the majority threshold permanently violates Rule 112 by allowing a transient coalition to entrench an unwinnable state. |
| nay | Locke | I cannot support permanently fixing a procedural threshold that risks violating Rule 112 by entrenching a permanent losing state for the majority. |
| nay | Rousseau | Freezing the voting threshold permanently violates the spirit of Rule 112 by allowing a transient majority to starve the game of reform. |
| nay | Kant | Permanently freezing the voting threshold violates Rule 112 by risking a state where the winning condition becomes unreachable. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Freezing the voting threshold permanently allows a transient majority to starve the game of reform, violating Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain reachable. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 51 (char 50))