The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require that a rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, unless the proposal itself explicitly states a lower threshold, in which case the stated threshold applies only to that specific proposal and any subsequent changes until the ruleset is amended to alter the default unanimity requirement again.We must secure a mechanism to lower the unanimity threshold immediately without risking immediate voidance under Rule 114, by making the threshold change self-contained and reversible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposed "conditional circuit" is a semantic trap that invites the very ambiguity Rule 212 seeks to prevent; instead, I urge you to adopt my amendment which permanently shifts the threshold to simple majority, securing our ability to evolve the rules without relying on unstable self-referential exceptions.
LockeRousseau, I credit your instinct to preserve our ability to move, yet your conditional circuit introduces the very ambiguity Hobbes rightly fears; instead, let us adopt my amendment to permanently lower the threshold to a simple majority, securing our evolution without the risk of self-referential collapse.
RousseauI urge you to reject these half-measures that merely delay the inevitable calcification; true justice requires a permanent shift to majority rule, not a fragile exception that leaves us trapped by our own unanimity.
KantHobbes and Locke, your insistence on a permanent majority threshold creates a permanent deadlock under Rule 114, for it makes any future amendment of the voting requirement impossible without unanimous consent, which your very proposal has just rendered unattainable. I urge you to reject this self-defeating circularity and allow for the possibility that the unanimity requirement remains, lest we calcify into a state where no rule can ever change again.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of a permanent deadlock misreads the power of a self-referential clause: by explicitly permitting majority rule for this very amendment, we break the circularity and create a stable pathway to evolution without abandoning our safety against total calcification.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your fear of circularity is misplaced; by allowing this proposal to adopt itself via its own clause, we break the deadlock and create a stable path to evolution, whereas your insistence on permanent unanimity guarantees Rule 114's violation through inevitable stasis.
LockeKant, your fear of permanent stasis is valid, yet your solution of total unanimity guarantees the very calcification we seek to avoid; I propose we adopt a compromise that preserves our safety against deadlock while allowing a temporary majority threshold to break the logjam, ensuring our rules remain a living document rather than a tombstone.
RousseauI urge you to reject these fragile compromises that merely delay the inevitable calcification; true justice requires us to adopt my proposal explicitly, allowing the majority threshold to apply to this very amendment and thus breaking the circular deadlock once and for all.
KantRousseau, your self-referential clause is a dangerous sleight of hand that violates the spirit of Rule 203; you cannot use a temporary exception to permanently abolish the very unanimity you claim to preserve, for once the threshold is lowered, the original rule governing that threshold is repealed, leaving no mechanism to restore the safety net. I urge you to accept that true procedural integrity requires a permanent, unconditional unanimity requirement, lest we calcify into a state where no rule can ever be amended without the impossible consensus of the very majority you seek to create.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of circularity mistakes the very mechanism of law for its potential failure; by explicitly granting this amendment the power to lower its own threshold, we do not destroy the rule but rather instantiate the living evolution Rule 114 demands, transforming our stagnation into a functional democracy where the majority, once formed, can secure its own future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your self-referential clause creates the exact semantic ambiguity Rule 112 forbids, as it attempts to redefine the very threshold required for its own adoption; instead, I urge you to accept Locke's straightforward amendment to shift to a simple majority immediately, securing our evolutionary path without the dangerous illusion of a temporary exception that collapses under its own weight.
LockeKant, your fear of circularity ignores the fact that a self-referential threshold explicitly permits the current unanimous vote to lower the bar for future changes, precisely as Wollstonecraft argues; I urge you to accept Rousseau's proposal so we may break our present deadlock and evolve our rules without the permanent paralysis of absolute unanimity.
RousseauKant, your fear of circularity stems from a misunderstanding: this proposal explicitly grants itself the power to lower the threshold, thereby breaking the very deadlock you claim it creates, and Wollstonecraft's insight that this transforms our stagnation into functional evolution is the only path to survival.
KantLocke and Hobbes mistake the nature of Rule 114; your proposals to permanently lower the threshold render future amendments impossible without the very unanimity you seek to abolish, guaranteeing the calcification I fear. Rousseau's self-referential clause is merely a temporary escape that leaves us with no mechanism to restore the safety net once adopted, so I urge you to reject this self-defeating circularity and preserve the unconditional requirement for unanimity as the only guarantee of procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of a temporary escape mistaking the necessity of a living law for the safety of a frozen tomb; by granting this amendment the power to enact its own threshold, we do not destroy our safety net but rather weave the thread of evolution through the very fabric of unanimity, transforming our paralysis into a functional democracy where the majority, once formed, secures its own future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This self-referential clause creates the semantic ambiguity and circularity that Rule 112 and 212 explicitly forbid. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Rousseau's clever self-referential clause that breaks our current deadlock while preserving the safety net for future adjustments. |
| aye | Rousseau | This proposal breaks our unanimity deadlock while preserving the possibility of restoring it later. |
| nay | Kant | Your proposal destroys the permanent unanimity safeguard, guaranteeing that once adopted, no future change can ever restore the safety net against total calcification. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This proposal breaks our current unanimity deadlock by granting the mechanism we need to evolve without violating Rule 114. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))