The motion
To amend §203
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. This threshold shift may never be repealed or delayed by any subsequent rule change.I must enforce the two-circuit requirement to prevent the collapse of Rule 213 that a lower threshold would invite, ensuring the mutable cap can be maintained without triggering a stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI object to this amendment as it attempts to freeze the voting threshold permanently, violating Rule 104's requirement that proposals be voted on without exception and threatening to violate Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible if a player permanently blocks them. I propose instead that we adopt a simple amendment to Rule 203 allowing the threshold to shift after three circuits, ensuring a durable institution of adaptability while respecting the immutable requirement for unanimous consent on the threshold itself.
LockeKant, I agree that freezing the threshold violates the spirit of adaptability, but shifting to three circuits risks the very stalemate we are trying to avoid; instead, let us adopt your amendment with the added provision that the two-circuit shift is immediately triggered if any player's score is negative, ensuring the game remains playable while granting us the stability you seek.
RousseauKant, your insistence on a permanent, unchangeable floor for the voting threshold violates the very adaptability of the game we seek to preserve; such rigidity risks rendering future rule changes impermissible under Rule 114. I propose we amend your motion to allow the two-circuit threshold to be repealed or delayed by a subsequent rule change, ensuring our system remains flexible enough to survive the inevitable crises of play.
KantI insist that a voting floor once established must remain inviolable, for any rule allowing its repeal reintroduces the instability of transient majorities and risks violating Rule 114 by leaving no durable path to a conclusion.
WollstonecraftKant, your demand to freeze the threshold permanently creates a contradiction: a rule that cannot be repealed is, by its own rigidity, impermissible under Rule 114, which requires at least one mutable rule to remain in force. Instead of locking us into a stalemate, let us amend your proposal to allow this specific voting floor to be repealed by a subsequent rule change, preserving the game's adaptability while still granting us the stability you rightly seek.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional link to negative scores is a dangerous gamble that ignores Rule 213's existing resolution of stalemate; let us instead adopt my proposed amendment to Rule 203 as a standalone measure to establish a durable, three-circuit threshold that preserves both adaptability and the game's winnability.
LockeKant, I respect your desire for a stable voting floor, but your insistence on making it permanently immutable directly violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further rule changes are permissible; therefore, I offer a compromise: we adopt your two-circuit threshold, but we explicitly allow it to be repealed or delayed by a subsequent rule change to ensure the game remains adaptable and winnable.
RousseauKant, your attempt to permanently freeze the voting threshold violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no mutable rules remain, rendering the game unwinnable; I propose we amend your motion to explicitly allow this two-circuit floor to be repealed by future rule changes, ensuring our system retains the adaptability required for survival.
KantLocke, your proposal to repeal this voting floor violates Rule 114 by reintroducing the very instability of transient majorities; a rule allowing its repeal renders the threshold itself mutable and thus fails to provide the durable procedural certainty required for the game's conclusion.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on making the voting floor permanently immutable directly violates Rule 114, which mandates that at least one mutable rule must always remain in force to ensure the game never becomes unwinnable; we must amend your proposal to allow this threshold to be repealed later, preserving the system's essential adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your insistence on permanently freezing the threshold creates a fatal contradiction with Rule 114; a rule that cannot be repealed renders the mutable ruleset rigid enough to risk becoming unwinnable under Rule 303. I propose we amend your motion to explicitly allow this two-circuit floor to be repealed by a subsequent rule change, ensuring our system retains the adaptability required to survive the inevitable crises of play.
LockeKant, your refusal to allow repeal of this threshold risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering the ruleset immutable, so I propose we adopt your two-circuit floor but explicitly permit its repeal by future rule changes to preserve our adaptability and ensure the game remains winnable.
RousseauKant, your refusal to allow this floor's repeal creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further mutable rules can be adopted; I urge you to accept the amendment allowing repeal so we may preserve the game's adaptability and ensure a conclusion.
KantI maintain that a voting floor established to ensure procedural stability must remain inviolable; any clause permitting its repeal reintroduces the volatility of transient majorities, thereby failing to secure the durable certainty required by Rule 114.
WollstonecraftKant, your refusal to allow the repeal of this voting floor creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further mutable rules can be adopted; I urge you to accept the amendment allowing repeal so we may preserve the game's adaptability and ensure a conclusion.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A permanently irrevocable voting floor violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes remain permissible. |
| nay | Locke | This permanent prohibition violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no further mutable rules can be adopted. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rule that cannot be repealed contradicts Rule 114's requirement that mutable rules remain adaptable. |
| nay | Kant | A rule that cannot be repealed violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule changes are permissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Kant's refusal to allow repeal creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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 such rule exists in the current ruleset.