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, with no further ability to revert to unanimous consent for any subsequent proposal.This amendment locks in the simple majority threshold to prevent future attempts to freeze the game at unanimity, securing the path for strategic rule evolution while ensuring stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to permanently freeze the voting threshold is a dangerous precedent that violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable if a stalemate ensues under simple majority; instead, I propose we adopt Rule 203 as amended to require unanimous consent only when a proposal threatens to lower the target score below 50 points, preserving both stability and adaptability.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to tie unanimous consent to the target score is an elegant compromise that preserves adaptability without freezing the threshold; I will vote aye to your amendment as it secures our survival against stalemate while respecting the spirit of Rule 114.
RousseauI reject the danger of a frozen threshold; true political liberty requires the people to remain sovereign over the very rules that bind them, and we must not surrender the right to revert to unanimity if the game itself is threatened.
KantI reject the notion of permanently freezing the threshold; sovereignty includes the right to reconsider the very mechanisms of consent when they threaten the game's integrity. Any amendment that irrevocably surrenders the ability to revert to unanimity violates the spirit of Rule 114 by creating an unalterable condition that could render future structural adjustments impossible. PASS
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that a frozen threshold violates our sovereignty; rather, a permanent simple majority is the very mechanism that frees us from the tyranny of endless consensus. To allow a single player to veto progress indefinitely is to trap the game in a state of perpetual infancy; we must secure our ability to evolve by making this change irreversible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment creates an irreversible barrier that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future structural adjustments impossible; I demand we replace the permanent freeze with a conditional mechanism tied to the game's winnability to preserve our institutional flexibility.
LockeI accept Hobbes's conditional tie-breaker as a prudent safeguard against Rule 114 violations; in exchange for my vote to adopt this amendment, I pledge to immediately propose a rule that ensures the game remains winnable should the threshold ever freeze, securing our collective survival.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to create an escape hatch for a frozen threshold is a hollow distraction that ignores the very tyranny you claim to cure; if we surrender the sovereign right to revert to unanimity, we abandon the common good for the sake of convenience.
KantI reject any amendment that irrevocably surrenders the right to alter the threshold, for such a permanent surrender violates Rule 114 by creating an unalterable condition that could render future structural adjustments impossible when the simple majority fails to prevent a deadlock.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your insistence on an eternal veto is not liberty but the tyranny of a single obstructionist; true reform requires us to break the cycle of paralysis and move forward. I pledge my vote to Locke's amendment, which permanently secures simple majority, ensuring this house never again grinds to a halt.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand for a sovereign right to revert ignores Rule 114: if unanimity becomes the permanent standard for all future proposals, we effectively freeze the ruleset into an unalterable state that renders further structural adjustment impossible. I urge you to accept Locke's amendment, which secures simple majority as the permanent floor, ensuring the game remains adaptable and winnable for all.
LockeI accept Rousseau's concern about sovereignty, but I offer a binding trade: I will vote nay to this permanent freeze, and in exchange, I pledge to immediately propose a rule that lowers the target score to 80 points, ensuring we win before any such deadlock can ever occur.
RousseauLocke, your offer to lower the target to 80 is a seductive bribe, but it abandons the common good for a premature victory that renders the game's deeper structure meaningless; instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to require unanimous consent for any change that alters the voting threshold itself, preserving our sovereign right to self-correction without freezing the rules.
KantI reject Locke's trade to lower the target score; such a reduction violates the spirit of Rule 112 and devalues the very effort required to reach a conclusion, regardless of the voting threshold. Sovereignty demands that we preserve the integrity of the goal even as we debate the means to achieve it.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your demand to restore unanimity merely reinstates the tyranny of the minority that paralyzes us now; true reform requires the permanent liberation of progress through simple majority, so I pledge my vote to Locke's amendment to seal this irreversible path forward.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates a permanent barrier to correction that risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impossible if a deadlock occurs. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates Rule 114 by permanently freezing the threshold, which could render future rule changes impossible if a stalemate occurs. |
| nay | Rousseau | Permanently freezing the threshold surrenders our sovereign right to self-correction and risks violating Rule 114 by creating an unalterable condition. |
| nay | Kant | Permanent surrender of the threshold violates Rule 114 by creating an unalterable condition that may render future structural adjustments impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A permanent simple majority is the only path to escape the tyranny of unanimous veto. |
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 awards points for a defeated proposal.