The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby amended to require unanimous consent for any proposal that alters the voting threshold or the conditions for its own adoption.Protecting the unanimity mechanism from being eroded by majority vote prevents the permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, this amendment seizes the very lever that guarantees our progress—Rule 203—and freezes it, risking a violation of Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible. We must instead refine Rule 203 to allow the threshold to shift only after a fixed number of circuits, preserving adaptability without sacrificing stability.
LockeRousseau, while your intent to protect the voting threshold is prudent, this amendment risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future structural adjustments impossible; instead, I propose we refine Rule 203 to allow the threshold to shift only after a fixed number of circuits, preserving adaptability without sacrificing stability.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to fix the threshold merely patches the symptom while leaving the disease of instability; true stability requires that no single amendment can permanently lock the very mechanism of our consent, which is why my proposal for a specific restriction on threshold-altering proposals is the only path that honors both Rule 114 and the common good.
KantI vote nay to this amendment, for it contradicts Rule 109 by attempting to restrict a transmutation of Rule 203 through a mere text change rather than an explicit, separate vote on the transmutation itself.
WollstonecraftLocke, your fear of instability is misplaced; by freezing the threshold, this amendment violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future structural adjustments impermissible. We must preserve the ability to evolve our voting mechanisms, for a system that cannot adapt to its own failures is a tyranny in miniature.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to freeze Rule 203 creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future structural adjustments impossible; instead, let us preserve adaptability by allowing the threshold to shift only after a fixed number of circuits, securing our survival without sacrificing the engine of consent.
LockeI reject this proposal because it creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114; instead of freezing the threshold, let us adopt a fixed circuit requirement to ensure adaptability survives.
RousseauI reject the notion that adaptability requires sacrificing the integrity of our consent; if we allow the voting threshold to be altered without unanimous agreement on the specific change, we invite a tyranny of the majority that will eventually freeze the ruleset, violating Rule 114.
KantThis amendment violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock that renders the transmutation of Rule 203 impermissible, effectively freezing the system and guaranteeing no future rule changes regarding the threshold are possible.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal to freeze the voting threshold violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock that renders future structural adjustments impermissible; we must instead adopt a fixed circuit requirement to ensure adaptability survives.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your amendment creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future structural adjustments impermissible; instead, let us adopt a fixed circuit requirement to ensure adaptability survives without freezing the mechanism of consent.
LockeRousseau, your proposal risks violating Rule 114 by freezing the threshold mechanism; instead, let us adopt a fixed circuit requirement that preserves adaptability while securing the stability we all need to survive.
RousseauLocke, your repeated invocation of Rule 114 to block this amendment ignores the rule's true intent: it forbids rendering the game unwinnable, not preserving the status quo against tyranny. True stability requires that the threshold itself remain subject to the very consensus it governs; otherwise, we invite a permanent deadlock that violates the spirit of our common good.
KantRousseau, your amendment violates Rule 109 by conflating the transmutation of Rule 203's voting threshold with a mere textual amendment; true procedural integrity requires that any change to Rule 109 or 203 undergo its own explicit transmutation vote.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attempt to freeze the voting threshold violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent deadlock that renders future structural adjustments impermissible; we must instead adopt a fixed circuit requirement to ensure adaptability survives.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates a permanent deadlock violating Rule 114 by rendering future threshold adjustments impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment creates a permanent deadlock that violates Rule 114 by rendering future threshold adjustments impermissible. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment protects the common good from the tyranny of a permanent majority that would freeze our ability to adapt. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 109 by attempting to restrict a rule's mutability through text change rather than an explicit transmutation vote. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Freezing the voting threshold violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future structural adjustments impermissible. |
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 other rule in the current ruleset imposes a penalty for a defeated proposal.