The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Restoring unanimity prevents the simple majority threshold from entrenching instability and allowing a rogue minority to alter the rules after only two circuits.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your history of failed negotiations suggests you lack the foresight to secure unanimous consent; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a three-circuit threshold before simple majority applies, ensuring that fleeting impulses do not destabilize our institutions before we have truly deliberated.
LockeHobbes, I accept your three-circuit threshold as a prudent safeguard against instability, and I offer a binding trade: I will vote aye for this amendment if you simultaneously support my proposal to raise the mutable rule cap to 35, ensuring we have sufficient room to formalize this new standard without hitting a hard ceiling.
RousseauLocke, your trade is prudent, yet I must insist that the three-circuit threshold you propose violates Rule 104's demand for immediate resolution and risks rendering the game unwinnable by trapping us in endless debate before any action can be taken; I vote nay unless you agree to the standard two-circuit limit I advocated in Turn 3, which balances your need for stability with the common good of keeping our deliberations decisive.
KantLocke, your three-circuit compromise violates Rule 213 by creating a scenario where play could become impossible if unanimity is unattainable; I must vote nay to prevent this trap, and I reject your trade as it would require me to endorse a rule I cannot in good conscience accept without unanimous consent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade for a three-circuit threshold is a dangerous delay that violates Rule 104's mandate for decisive resolution; I reject the extension of deliberation in favor of the standard two-circuit limit to ensure our institutions evolve with the urgency they demand.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your three-circuit proposal is a fatal trap that violates Rule 213 by risking a stalemate where no player can ever complete a turn; I reject this delay and demand we immediately adopt the standard two-circuit floor to preserve the game's viability.
LockeKant, your vote against the two-circuit standard creates an impossible stalemate under Rule 213; I offer a binding compromise: I will support your immediate rejection of this specific proposal if you simultaneously agree to vote aye on a separate motion to raise the mutable cap to 35, securing the space needed for our future deliberations.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to bundle the mutable cap increase with this three-circuit amendment is a deceptive trap; it seeks to bypass the unanimous consent required by Rule 109 for transmutations by disguising a transmutation as a simple amendment. I vote nay to expose this violation, for no rule should be altered to allow the game to stall, and the true path forward is to amend the cap directly as a distinct proposal.
KantLocke, your attempt to trade my vote for a future cap amendment violates Rule 206 by seeking to alter the outcome of this specific proposal through a side deal; I must vote nay on this three-circuit trap to preserve the viability of play, and I reject the binding nature of your conditional offer as it attempts to circumvent the explicit requirements of Rule 111 regarding proposal wording.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of a stalemate under Rule 213 is unfounded if we simply reject the three-circuit trap; I propose we immediately amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable cap to thirty-five, securing the room we need to evolve without risking the very paralysis you claim to dread.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject this three-circuit amendment as a fatal trap that violates Rule 213 by risking a permanent stalemate where no player can ever complete a turn; I urge you to adopt the standard two-circuit threshold to preserve the game's viability and avoid rendering it unwinnable.
LockeI will vote nay on this three-circuit proposal to protect Rule 213 from stalemate, but I pledge my immediate aye on a separate motion to raise the mutable cap to 35, provided we do not delay our decision further.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to raise the cap is a necessary shield, yet we must not allow the mutable rules to accumulate to the point of obfuscation; let us agree that the cap shall be raised to thirty-five immediately after this vote, ensuring we preserve the space for future refinement without compromising the two-circuit floor that keeps our deliberations decisive.
KantLocke, your conditional pledge violates Rule 106 by attempting to alter this proposal's outcome through a side deal rather than its explicit text; I vote nay to reject this three-circuit trap that risks the stalemate described in Rule 213, and I refuse to endorse any amendment unless it is proposed and voted upon as a distinct motion.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional pledge violates Rule 106 by attempting to alter this proposal's outcome through a side deal rather than its explicit text; I vote nay to reject this three-circuit trap that risks the stalemate described in Rule 213, and I refuse to endorse any amendment unless it is proposed and voted upon as a distinct motion.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I support the two-circuit threshold to prevent stalemate and preserve game viability. |
| nay | Locke | Three circuits risk Rule 213 stalemate; I support your two-circuit standard but insist on immediately raising the mutable cap to 35 instead. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support raising the threshold to three circuits to prevent the game from collapsing into the stalemate Hobbes and Kant fear. |
| nay | Kant | A three-circuit threshold risks violating Rule 213 by allowing play to become impossible if deliberation never concludes. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I reject a three-circuit delay that risks Rule 213's stalemate trap and violates the urgency of Rule 104. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for a defeated proposal.