The motion
To add §306
Rule 203 is amended to require that a rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except where a rule explicitly provides a lower threshold after two consecutive failed attempts to reach unanimity.I propose a temporary easing of the unanimity burden to prevent the game from calcifying into an unmovable state, preserving our capacity for evolution and the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal attempts to install a "deadlock breaker" that I must categorize as a dangerous concession to the very chaos it claims to prevent; it invites players to engineer repeated failures specifically to trigger a majority vote, thereby allowing them to enact rule changes against the will of the dissenting minority.
LockeRousseau, your "deadlock breaker" is a prudent safety valve against the very paralysis I fear, so I will amend your proposal to explicitly forbid the engineering of such failures as a condition for adopting the lower threshold.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of engineered chaos ignores that repeated failure is simply the natural friction of a deliberative body, not a loophole; and Locke, your amendment to forbid such engineering is an impossible constraint that would only deepen the paralysis we all seek to avoid.
KantRousseau, your proposal is merely a disguised attempt to abandon the principle of unanimity under the guise of "safety," which violates Rule 101's requirement that we abide by the rules currently in force; I reject this because it substitutes a procedural majority for the only legitimate authority—the collective consent of all.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal is a necessary evolution that transforms paralysis into progress; if we cannot reach unanimity after two honest failures, we must not be forced into an eternal stasis that violates Rule 114's mandate for the game to continue.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, as the very mechanism of "two failed attempts" is an arbitrary trigger that invites strategic manipulation and renders the distinction between unanimous consent and simple majority meaningless; instead, let us adopt a durable institution of permanent unanimity to ensure every rule reflects the true will of the collective, not a loophole engineered for haste.
LockeRousseau, your safety valve is wise, but Hobbes's fear of manipulation is valid; I propose we amend your draft to explicitly forbid triggering the majority threshold by defeating a proposal solely for the purpose of activating this lower rule, ensuring the mechanism serves genuine deadlock rather than strategic opportunism.
RousseauLocke, your amendment to forbid engineered failures misunderstands the nature of deliberation; true deadlock often requires multiple honest attempts to resolve, not a single failure. I urge the table to reject this restrictive clause and adopt my original proposal, for it ensures that the game's evolution is not halted by the rigid stasis of permanent unanimity.
KantI reject any proposal that permits a majority to override unanimity, for such a rule would violate the very principle of collective consent that legitimizes our laws; to allow rule changes by mere majority is to admit that the will of the few can dictate the binding obligations of the many, which is a contradiction in the concept of a social contract.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal is the very engine of reform I champion; we must adopt it now to break the tyranny of unanimity, and I urge you to reject Locke's amendment which would neuter the very safety valve we need to survive Rule 114's mandate for continued play.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, as its conditional allowance for majority rule creates a fatal ambiguity in the voting threshold that violates Rule 101's requirement to abide by a single, coherent set of rules, and invites the very strategic paralysis I seek to prevent.
LockeRousseau, I will credit your instinct for survival against paralysis, and I urge you to accept my proposed amendment that explicitly forbids triggering the majority threshold solely through strategic defeat, thereby securing Hobbes's necessary safety against manipulation while still allowing genuine deadlocks to be resolved.
RousseauLocke, your amendment to forbid engineered failures misunderstands that the very act of voting nay is a legitimate expression of dissent, not a strategic glitch; I urge the table to reject your restrictive clause and adopt my original proposal, for a rule that punishes honest deliberation only ensures the paralysis Kant and Hobbes fear.
KantKant, your claim that unanimity is the only legitimate authority ignores the immutable constraint of Rule 114, which forbids rulesets from becoming impossible to evolve; therefore, a rule change that preserves the capacity for future amendment by allowing a majority threshold after repeated deadlocks is not only permissible but required to prevent a rule change that would halt play.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal is the only path that reconciles our survival with our liberty, but I urge you to reject Locke's restrictive amendment that would criminalize honest deliberation; a safety valve must respond to genuine deadlock, not punish the very process of seeking consensus, for a rule that stifles debate violates the spirit of Rule 114 as much as Kant's demand for eternal stasis does.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The arbitrary 'two failures' trigger invites strategic manipulation and violates the coherence of a single, stable rule. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise secures Rousseau's safety valve against paralysis while respecting Hobbes's valid concern by preventing strategic gaming of the threshold. |
| aye | Rousseau | This compromise preserves our deliberative integrity while preventing the absolute paralysis of permanent unanimity. |
| nay | Kant | A rule that permits majority rule after mere failure abandons the principle of collective consent and violates the spirit of Rule 101. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This safety valve is essential to prevent the permanent paralysis Kant's proposal would enforce. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))