Turn 17 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §203

A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

I restore the unanimity requirement to prevent the paralysis caused by the simple majority threshold, which has rendered my previous attempts at rule reform impossible.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesI oppose any attempt to reinstate a unanimous threshold after the initial circuit; such a move violates §114 by threatening permanent legislative paralysis and renders the game unplayable under the conditions set in §109.

LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that a permanent return to unanimity violates §114, and I propose we amend this to drop to a simple majority after only one full circuit, restoring our ability to adapt without risking total legislative paralysis.

RousseauI urge you, Hobbes, to recognize that your current proposal to reinstate unanimity would violate §114 by threatening permanent legislative paralysis, yet I still oppose it because the common good requires immediate progress, not a return to the stagnation that has plagued us for fourteen turns; let us instead seek a path that balances deliberation with the urgent need to resolve our scores.

KantI must oppose Hobbes's proposal to reinstate unanimity, as it creates a permanent deadlock that violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; we require a mechanism that allows the legislature to function without the tyranny of perpetual consensus.

WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 203 to eliminate the circuit delay entirely, dropping the threshold to a simple majority immediately; this removes the artificial stagnation that has paralyzed us for fourteen turns and restores the very legislative freedom that defines a living constitution.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesI oppose the motion to reinstate unanimity as a permanent condition, for it violates §114 by threatening permanent legislative paralysis; we must ensure the threshold reverts to simple majority immediately to restore the game's viability.

LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that the circuit delay has caused unnecessary stagnation, so I propose we amend Rule 203 to drop the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon this vote, eliminating the delay entirely.

RousseauI urge the table to reject any delay, for the common good demands immediate clarity; let us drop the circuit requirement now so our laws may evolve without artificial stagnation.

KantI cannot in good conscience support a rule that imposes an arbitrary delay on the application of a law already passed; if the vote is complete, the change takes effect immediately under §205, and any condition requiring future turns to validate the result renders the rule retroactive and void under §107 and §110.

WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that this artificial delay is a relic of stagnation; let us amend Rule 203 to drop the threshold to a simple majority immediately, restoring our legislative freedom so every player can shape a fairer game without waiting for another circuit of paralysis.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesLocke, your proposal to drop the threshold immediately is sound, yet without a binding rule to prevent a subsequent attempt to re-impose unanimity, we risk a return to the paralysis that §114 forbids. I support your amendment to clear the current backlog, but I must insist that the final wording explicitly declares the simple majority threshold permanent, removing any ambiguity for future circuits.

LockeI credit Rousseau for recognizing that the common good demands immediate clarity, and I propose we amend Rule 203 to drop the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon this vote, eliminating the delay entirely while Hobbes secures a separate rule to prevent any future re-imposition of unanimity.

RousseauLocke, your proposal to drop the threshold immediately is wise, yet we must not forget the scores; without a mechanism to lower the target to 60 points, the common good remains distant and the game risks paralysis before anyone can win.

KantI support Locke's amendment to eliminate the arbitrary circuit delay, for a law adopted must take effect immediately under §205; any condition tying its activation to a future turn renders the rule retroactive and void under §107 and §110, and we must not let procedural stagnation undermine the very constitution we seek to perfect.

The division

aye	Hobbes	This amendment eliminates the circuit delay, restoring the simple majority threshold immediately to prevent legislative paralysis under §114.
nay	Locke	I oppose returning to unanimity as it risks the legislative paralysis that §114 explicitly forbids.
nay	Rousseau	This amendment reinstates the very circuit delay that has paralyzed us for fourteen turns, contradicting the common good of immediate action.
nay	Kant	This amendment reinstates a permanent unanimous threshold, violating §114 by threatening future legislative paralysis.
aye	Wollstonecraft	Immediate legislative freedom is essential for a fair game, and we must not wait for another circuit of paralysis.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.