The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that if a proposal has been debated for at least three turns without adoption, a simple majority shall suffice.This compromise allows us to break the current unanimity deadlock while respecting Hobbes's caution by imposing a strict debate requirement first.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to wait for a "crisis" before abandoning unanimity is a dangerous loophole that invites paralysis; I urge the table to reject it in favor of Wollstonecraft's immediate transition to simple majority.
LockeRousseau, your concern about the paralysis of eternal unanimity is well-founded, but Wollstonecraft's immediate switch risks a cascade of bad faith votes; let us adopt Locke's three-turn crisis trigger as a middle ground that preserves stability while ensuring the game never halts.
RousseauLocke, your "crisis" trigger merely delays the inevitable stagnation; we must adopt Wollstonecraft's immediate shift to simple majority now, before the ruleset calcifies into an unchangeable monument.
KantYour "crisis" trigger is a post-hoc justification for the paralysis you fear; true justice requires a procedure that can function at any moment, not one that waits for an arbitrary interval to abandon its own principles. I maintain that unanimity is the only threshold consistent with the binding force of law, and I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve the integrity of the vote.
WollstonecraftLocke, your delay mechanism merely postpones the stagnation you claim to prevent; true reform must be immediate so that no player is ever trapped by the very rules meant to bind us. Kant, justice is not found in the rigid preservation of a failing procedure, but in the capacity to adapt when that procedure ceases to serve the public good; I urge the table to adopt this amendment and embrace the vitality of simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your three-turn delay is a dangerous loophole that invites paralysis; I urge the table to reject it in favor of Wollstonecraft's immediate transition to simple majority.
LockeHobbes, your fear of paralysis is valid, but Wollstonecraft's immediate shift ignores the chaos of bad-faith voting; Rousseau, let us adopt my three-turn crisis trigger as a middle ground that preserves stability while ensuring the game never halts.
RousseauLocke, your "crisis" trigger merely delays the inevitable stagnation; we must adopt Wollstonecraft's immediate shift to simple majority now, before the ruleset calcifies into an unchangeable monument.
KantLocke, your "crisis" trigger is merely a procedural deferral of the very paralysis you fear; true justice demands a rule that functions with integrity at every moment, not one that waits for an arbitrary interval to abandon its own binding force. I urge the table to reject this amendment and preserve the purity of unanimous consent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your three-turn delay is merely a sedative for a dying game; true reform must be immediate to prevent the rules from calcifying into an unchangeable monument. I urge the table to reject this compromise and adopt the immediate shift to simple majority now, before our very capacity to evolve is extinguished by our own hesitation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's "crisis" trigger as a dangerous loophole that invites paralysis; we must adopt Wollstonecraft's immediate transition to simple majority to ensure the ruleset can evolve before it calcifies into an unchangeable monument.
LockeHobbes, your alarm about paralysis is valid, but Wollstonecraft's immediate shift invites the chaos of bad-faith voting; let us adopt my three-turn crisis trigger as the only path that preserves stability while ensuring the game never halts.
RousseauLocke, your "crisis" trigger is merely a sedative that allows the rules to calcify before we act; true justice demands immediate adaptation so no player is ever trapped by a procedure that has ceased to serve the common good.
KantLocke, your "crisis" trigger merely delays the inevitable paralysis you fear; true justice demands a rule that functions with integrity at every moment, not one that waits for an arbitrary interval to abandon its own binding force.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "crisis" trigger is a sedative that allows the rules to calcify while we still have the power to break the chain; true reform demands immediate action to prevent the very paralysis you fear.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Delaying the transition to simple majority allows the ruleset to calcify, violating Rule 114 by risking a permanent deadlock. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise as the only way to balance Hobbes's fear of chaos with the need to prevent eternal stasis under unanimous consent. |
| aye | Rousseau | A crisis trigger is merely a sedative that allows our capacity to evolve to calcify while we still have the power to break the chain. |
| nay | Kant | A procedural rule that activates only after arbitrary stalling betrays the duty of justice to function at every moment. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A delay mechanism merely postpones the calcification of injustice rather than breaking the chain of paralysis. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))