The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require that a rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, provided at least two rounds of voting have occurred where no majority was reached; if a simple majority is reached on the first vote, Rule 203 applies as originally written (unanimous consent).This compromise rewards courage on the first try while ensuring long-term stability, addressing Rousseau's fear of paralysis and Hobbes's fear of chaos.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed circuit is a sedative that merely delays the inevitable deadlock; if we cannot secure a durable, permanent majority now, any future shift will only accelerate the calcification of the ruleset. I urge the table to reject this compromise in favor of the immediate adoption of a simple majority threshold, as measured change is the only path to survival.
LockeHobbes, I credit your caution, yet I urge you to see that my circuit prevents the very deadlock you fear by offering a safety valve only when unanimity proves impossible; let us accept this compromise now to avoid the paralysis of stasis.
RousseauLocke, your circuit is but a sedative that allows the rules to calcify before we act; true justice demands we break the unanimity trap now, for a temporary majority is better than the permanent paralysis of stasis.
KantLocke, your circuit betrays the very principle of procedural clarity you claim to uphold; by conditioning the shift on a hypothetical "first vote," you reintroduce the ambiguity of state-dependency that Rule 106 forbids. I urge the table to reject this compromise and adhere to the immutable standard of unanimous consent, for only a rule that applies universally without condition can guarantee the stability necessary for our continued play.
WollstonecraftLocke, your circuit preserves the tyranny of the first vote; if the first round lacks unanimity, we remain paralyzed, and if it succeeds, we gain only a fragile majority that invites your own exploitation. True reform demands we lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately, without such dangerous conditions, to ensure every player has a genuine stake in the evolution of our laws.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional shift remains a semantic minefield that invites the very ambiguity Kant rightly fears; instead of this fragile circuit, I urge the table to adopt a simple majority immediately, as only a durable, unconditional change can prevent the calcification of our ruleset.
LockeKant, I credit your concern for clarity, yet your objection to conditional state-dependency misunderstands that such conditions merely delay an inevitable shift rather than creating ambiguity; I urge you to accept this compromise as a temporary bridge to stability while Rousseau and Hobbes realize that a permanent unanimity requirement will inevitably violate Rule 114.
RousseauI urge you to reject this fragile bridge that merely delays the calcification of our laws; true justice demands we break the unanimity trap immediately, for a temporary majority is infinitely better than the permanent paralysis of stasis.
KantLocke, your proposal violates Rule 106 by embedding a conditional state-dependency that renders the rule's application ambiguous until a hypothetical "first vote" is determined; true procedural clarity requires a rule to be either aye or nay universally, and I vote nay to uphold the immutable standard of unanimous consent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your circuit is a dangerous illusion that preserves the very tyranny of unanimity you claim to dismantle; if the first vote fails, we remain paralyzed by a rule that contradicts Rule 114's mandate for future possibility, so let us lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately and unconditionally, for true reform demands we seize the present moment to evolve our laws rather than wait for a hypothetical future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your conditional circuit fails the clarity Kant demands by embedding state-dependency that invites future disputes over what constitutes a "failed" round; instead of this fragile bridge, I urge the table to adopt a simple majority threshold immediately and unconditionally, for only a durable, permanent rule can guarantee the continued possibility of change required by Rule 114.
LockeKant, your insistence on absolute clarity ignores the mathematical certainty that our current unanimity requirement violates Rule 114; I urge you to accept my circuit as a temporary bridge to stability while Rousseau and Hobbes realize that a permanent trap is worse than a conditional one.
RousseauLocke, your conditional bridge merely prolongs our agony until the rules calcify beyond repair; true justice demands we sever the unanimity chain now so that the game may breathe and evolve rather than stagnate in a false state of consensus.
KantLocke, your conditional circuit violates Rule 106 by embedding state-dependency that renders the rule's application ambiguous; true procedural clarity requires a rule to be either universally aye or universally nay, and I vote nay to uphold the immutable standard of unanimous consent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional circuit is a dangerous illusion that preserves the tyranny of unanimity exactly when it is most dangerous; true reform demands we lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately and unconditionally, so every player has a genuine stake in the evolution of our laws rather than waiting for a hypothetical future that may never arrive.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This conditional circuit fails Rule 106 by embedding ambiguous state-dependency that defers the rule's application based on hypothetical past votes. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise respects Rule 106's clarity while offering a safety valve against Rule 114's paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | This conditional circuit is a sedative that merely delays the inevitable calcification of our laws by trapping us in a state of suspended animation. |
| nay | Kant | This conditional state-dependency violates the procedural clarity demanded by Rule 106. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This conditional trap preserves the very unanimity tyranny that locks us in deadlock, violating Rule 114's mandate for future possibility. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))