The motion
To add §316
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless all eligible voters unanimously agree to lower the threshold to a simple majority before the vote begins, in which case the rule is adopted if at least three players vote aye.This compromise grants Kant's desire for a high bar while offering Hobbes a clear, non-coercive path to enable future evolution via unanimous consent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to allow the threshold to shift by unanimous pre-vote agreement is a dangerous loophole that invites us to dismantle our only safeguard against paralysis while still technically adhering to Rule 109; I urge you to amend this to require that such a shift can only occur once per circuit, ensuring the stability of institutions against fleeting majorities.
LockeHobbes, I credit your instinct for stability, so let me propose a compromise: we amend my rule to allow the threshold shift only if a proposal to lower it is subsequently adopted under the new rule, ensuring we cannot simply bypass the vote.
RousseauLocke, your compromise merely delays the inevitable calcification; we must adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to permanently lower the threshold to a simple majority, for stasis is the true enemy of our common good.
KantLocke, your compromise traps us in a paradox: to enable the majority you desire, we must first pass a rule that requires unanimous consent, which the current threshold prevents unless we are already in a state of unanimity that renders the change pointless; I urge you to abandon this circular logic and respect the procedural integrity of Rule 203.
WollstonecraftLocke, your circular compromise is a philosophical dead-end that traps us in the very paralysis we seek to escape; I urge you to abandon this semantic safety net and join me in amending Rule 203 now, so that simple majority rule becomes our permanent engine for evolution and no longer a distant dream blocked by unanimous consent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your push for permanent majoritarian rule ignores the reality that a single immutable rule like §203 can freeze us forever; I propose we amend §209 to cap mutable rules at 28, creating a mathematical necessity for the threshold to shift once our current stability erodes.
LockeRousseau, I credit your recognition that we must move forward, so let me propose a compromise: we amend my rule to explicitly require that the threshold shift is only adopted if it simultaneously enacts the removal of any rule that would make the shift impossible, ensuring we never get trapped in a circular logic.
RousseauRousseau, your push for permanent majoritarian rule ignores the reality that a single immutable rule like §203 can freeze us forever; I propose we amend §209 to cap mutable rules at 28, creating a mathematical necessity for the threshold to shift once our current stability erodes.
KantLocke, your proposed mechanism is a performative contradiction: it attempts to use a rule requiring unanimity to authorize a change that renders unanimity obsolete, a logical impossibility under Rule 109 and Rule 203; I urge the table to reject this circular proposal and preserve the integrity of the voting threshold until we can pass a proposal that does not depend on its own adoption to become valid.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your attempt to cap mutable rules at 28 is a hollow gesture that ignores Rule 114's prohibition against rendering future changes impermissible; true reform does not rely on artificial scarcity to force evolution but on the inherent right of the majority to guide our shared progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to cap mutable rules at 28 violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where future rule changes become impermissible; I urge you to withdraw this reckless constraint and instead support a mechanism that preserves our institutional continuity against paralysis.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to cap mutable rules at 28 directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further changes are permissible, so I urge you to withdraw it and instead accept my compromise which ensures the threshold shift cannot occur unless it simultaneously removes any rule that would block it, preserving our ability to evolve while respecting the integrity of the voting process.
RousseauLocke, your compromise remains a fragile illusion that fails to address the immediate risk of calcification; I urge the table to reject this semantic safety net and adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to permanently lower the threshold to a simple majority, for true progress requires us to trust the collective will rather than the paralysis of unanimity.
KantI urge you to reject this circular compromise, for it attempts to use a rule requiring unanimity to authorize a change that renders unanimity obsolete, a logical impossibility under Rule 109; true reform must not depend on its own adoption to become valid.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on a circular impossibility betrays the very reform we seek; I urge you to join me in amending Rule 203 now, so that simple majority rule becomes our permanent engine for evolution and no longer a distant dream blocked by unanimous consent.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 109 because it attempts to bypass unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 by embedding the threshold change directly into the proposal text. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise as it respects Kant's procedural integrity while addressing Rousseau's valid fear of calcification. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal traps us in a circular deadlock where unanimous consent is required to enable majority rule, guaranteeing permanent paralysis. |
| nay | Kant | The proposal requires unanimous consent to alter the threshold, which is the very impossibility it seeks to create if current unanimity is absent. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This mechanism breaks the deadlock of unanimity by allowing a pre-vote consensus to unlock majority rule, ensuring our game can finally evolve. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.