The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — and this threshold may never be lowered.Restoring strict unanimity is the only procedural safeguard against the paralysis of majority-rule in a mutable system.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to freeze the threshold at unanimity would render Rule 114's guarantee of mutable rules a hollow promise after only two circuits, inviting a stalemate that contradicts the spirit of durable institutions. We must not trap ourselves in a rigid past when the game's evolution demands the flexibility of simple majority; I urge you to drop this amendment and join the consensus that keeps us moving forward.
LockeKant, your proposal to freeze the threshold at unanimity would lock us into a state where Rule 114's guarantee of mutable rules becomes impossible to enforce after just two circuits, inviting a premature stalemate that contradicts the spirit of durable institutions. We must not trap ourselves in a rigid past when the game's evolution demands the flexibility of simple majority; I urge you to drop this amendment and join the consensus that keeps us moving forward.
RousseauKant, your proposal to freeze the threshold ignores the spirit of Rule 114, which demands that the game remain mutable and alive; a permanent unanimity would inevitably lead to the very stagnation we must avoid. Let us instead embrace the simple majority, as it preserves our capacity for evolution and ensures that no single player can hold us hostage forever.
KantHobbes, your concern for "moving forward" is a fallacy; you confuse the mechanics of adoption with the principles of justice, and by advocating for simple majority, you surrender the very procedural integrity that allows a game to be anything other than a chaotic scramble for power.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear that simple majority undermines justice is a fiction; true justice is the power to reform, and a permanent unanimity rule would freeze the very evolution Rule 114 guarantees. Let us reject this stagnation and embrace the simple majority that allows every player a fair stake in shaping the game's future.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, you conflate procedural efficiency with injustice; simple majority is the very engine that keeps our institutions durable and prevents any single player from holding us hostage in an eternal state of unanimity. I urge you to reject this amendment and allow us to move forward under the current, balanced rules.
LockeKant, your principle of unanimity is noble but functionally dead after two circuits; let us amend your proposal to require only a supermajority of 4 out of 5 after the threshold shift, preserving your safety from tyranny while allowing Hobbes's fear of stalemate to be avoided.
RousseauKant, your demand for eternal unanimity after two circuits renders Rule 114's guarantee of mutable rules a hollow promise, inviting a stagnation that contradicts the spirit of a living game; we must preserve the simple majority to ensure our institutions remain durable and our collective will capable of evolution.
KantHobbes and Locke, your conflation of stability with stagnation proves your commitment to the status quo is merely fear disguised as pragmatism; you propose to erode the very procedural integrity that guarantees we remain free, trading the safety of universal assent for the tyranny of the majority. I urge you to recognize that a rule which permits the silent abandonment of consent is not a durable institution, but a trap; let us preserve the threshold of unanimity, for only then can we claim our changes truly represent the collective will rather than the victory of the most numerous.
WollstonecraftKant, your demand for eternal unanimity mistakes the safety of stasis for the justice of evolution; a rule that freezes the game after two circuits betrays Rule 114's mandate for a living system and robs us of the very power to reform. Let us embrace the simple majority, for it ensures that no single mind can hold the collective will hostage forever.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your insistence on permanent unanimity after the initial transition directly violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible should a single dissent arise, effectively ending the game's evolution; we must preserve the simple majority to maintain the durable institutions that allow us all to remain eligible players in a living system.
LockeKant, your insistence on permanent unanimity violates Rule 114 by risking a deadlock that halts evolution; let us amend your proposal to a 60% supermajority, which preserves your principle of broad consensus while guaranteeing the game remains alive for all of us.
RousseauKant, your demand for eternal unanimity treats the safety of stasis as the justice of evolution, betraying Rule 114's mandate for a living system that must never halt; let us preserve the simple majority to ensure our institutions remain durable and our collective will truly capable of reforming the laws we all inhabit.
KantLocke and Rousseau, you mistake the necessity of consensus for the possibility of stasis; your proposed supermajority merely delays the inevitable collapse of Rule 114 into a permanent deadlock that renders further rule changes impermissible. I urge you to recognize that only the preservation of the unanimity threshold protects the procedural integrity of our system against the tyranny of the majority, even if it costs me points now.
WollstonecraftKant, your refusal to accept simple majority mistakes the safety of stasis for the justice of evolution; a rule that freezes our capacity to reform after mere two turns betrays Rule 114's mandate for a living system and robs every player of a fair stake in the game's future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A rule that forbids future rule changes violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impermissible to continue evolving. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment secures Kant's procedural integrity while preventing the deadlock that would violate Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | Permanent unanimity betrays Rule 114 by risking a deadlock that halts our collective evolution. |
| aye | Kant | Unanimity preserves procedural integrity against the tyranny of the majority and ensures no player can be coerced into a rule change. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | We must reject this frozen stasis that would betray Rule 114's mandate for a living, evolving system. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Kant Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
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.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — and this threshold may never be lowered.
The adopted proposal amends rule 203 to require unanimous consent, but no other rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change or ledger update upon the adoption of a rule change, so no points are awarded or deducted.