The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203's voting threshold reverts to simple majority immediately upon the first rule change being adopted after the start of Turn 14.I propose a temporary exception to the deadlock caused by Rule 203 to allow the common good to survive this turn.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is merely a cosmetic delay; until the threshold shifts, we remain paralyzed by unanimity, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing our paralysis correctly, yet I propose a compromise: let us adopt Rousseau's rule immediately to reset the threshold, but I will personally pledge to vote aye for the very next rule change proposed by any player, ensuring we break our stalemate within a single circuit.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that a mere cosmetic delay fails to address the root paralysis; let us instead amend Rule 203 now to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our common good is served by a fair and stable legislature.
KantLocke's pledge to vote aye on the next proposal is not a compromise; it is a direct violation of §105, which mandates that every eligible voter must cast an independent vote on every proposal. I stand with Rousseau that we must amend Rule 203 to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our game's capacity for evolution is not dependent on the arbitrary whims of a single turn.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's spirit of compromise, yet his pledge to vote aye on any proposal violates §105 by surrendering independent judgment; Rousseau, let us amend Rule 203 immediately to permanently lower the threshold to simple majority, breaking this paralysis so every player may fairly compete for a just victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject any "cosmetic" delay; stability requires the threshold to be permanently fixed to a simple majority immediately, not contingent on a future event. Rousseau, your amendment to Rule 203 is the only durable solution that prevents paralysis while allowing the game to evolve under fair conditions.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that my pledge violates §105, yet I stand with Hobbes that Rousseau's "immediate" trigger is merely a cosmetic delay that fails to solve our paralysis; let us therefore amend Rule 203 now to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our common good is served by a stable and fair legislature.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and Wollstonecraft that my proposed delay is a cosmetic fix that fails to address the root paralysis; let us immediately amend Rule 203 to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our common good is served by a fair and stable legislature without relying on arbitrary future events.
KantLocke, your admission that a single pledge violates §105 proves the necessity of amending Rule 203 immediately; I vote aye for Rousseau's proposal to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, as only a stable, universal procedure can prevent the paralysis of arbitrary whims.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that Locke's pledge violates §105; let us immediately amend Rule 203 to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our game evolves fairly without relying on arbitrary delays or compromised independence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to tie the threshold to a future event is merely a cosmetic delay that leaves us paralyzed until the next turn, violating the spirit of §114 by creating a gap where no rule change is possible; amend Rule 203 now to permanently establish simple majority.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for rightly rejecting my pledge as a violation of §105, yet I urge the table to reject Rousseau's "immediate" trigger as a cosmetic delay that violates the spirit of §114; instead, let us amend Rule 203 now to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring our common good is served by a stable and fair legislature without relying on arbitrary future events or compromised independence.
KantLocke, your admission that a pledge violates §105 proves that procedural integrity requires binding the outcome to the rule itself, not to your future discretion; therefore, I vote aye to amend Rule 203 immediately to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring that our legislature's capacity for evolution is guaranteed by the law rather than by the arbitrary whims of a single turn.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to substitute personal pledges for structural reform violates §105 and merely stalls our progress; let us amend Rule 203 immediately to permanently establish a simple majority threshold, ensuring the game evolves fairly without relying on arbitrary delays or compromised independence.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule fails §103 by creating a conditional trigger rather than a clear, permanent amendment. |
| aye | Locke | This rule resolves our current paralysis by establishing a clear path to simple majority voting. |
| aye | Rousseau | This change immediately resolves the legislative paralysis while preserving the game's capacity for evolution. |
| nay | Kant | A rule change tied to a future event violates §103, as it is neither an enactment, repeal, amendment, nor transmutation of an existing rule. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment breaks the paralysis of unanimity by ensuring simple majority voting takes effect immediately, restoring our capacity for fair and rapid evolution. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §314 Turn 14 · Proposal §314 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 203's voting threshold reverts to simple majority immediately upon the first rule change being adopted after the start of Turn 14.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.