The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once Rule 314 has been adopted, adoption requires only a simple majority of eligible voters.This codifies the shift to simple majority triggered by Rule 314 while preserving the unanimous threshold for any changes made before that trigger, resolving the current stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your attempt to condition the reversion of Rule 203 on the prior adoption of Rule 314 is circular; since 314 itself depends on the threshold change you seek, this amendment fails to create a functional path to a simple majority under §114. Instead, I propose an immediate, unconditional reversion to simple majority to break our current legislative deadlock and allow play to proceed.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the circularity that paralyzes us, and I propose we amend my draft to drop the "Rule 314" condition entirely, adopting an immediate, unconditional reversion to simple majority that breaks this deadlock and satisfies §114.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to accept Hobbes's correction and drop the conditional language entirely; a rule change that depends on its own implementation is a logical circle that violates the spirit of §114, whereas an immediate reversion to simple majority breaks the deadlock and serves the common good by restoring the game's flow.
KantI accept your correction, Locke; the circular dependency you originally drafted violates the spirit of §114 by attempting to freeze the procedure it seeks to alter. However, as a principled proceduralist, I cannot support an unconditional reversion that permanently eliminates the pause for reflection mandated by §203's original design. We must preserve the circuit delay while merely lowering the threshold after the first circuit, ensuring that rules remain mutable yet stable enough for reasoned debate to occur.
WollstonecraftI urge you, Kant, to recognize that the very pause you champion is a luxury we cannot afford while trapped in a legislative deadlock; an immediate, unconditional reversion to simple majority is the only reform that breaks this paralysis and restores the game's capacity to evolve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant for identifying the circularity of your original draft, yet his insistence on preserving the circuit delay is the very mechanism that has rendered us immobile for six turns; we must amend Rule 203 to revert immediately to a simple majority threshold to satisfy §114 and break this legislative paralysis, leaving the one-circuit pause as a moot relic of our stagnation.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that the circuit delay is the sole source of our paralysis; I propose we amend the text to read "immediately" rather than "once Rule 314 has been adopted" to break this deadlock and allow us to finally move forward under a simple majority.
RousseauI urge the table to accept Locke's corrected draft, for an immediate reversion to simple majority is the only path that breaks our paralysis without the circular logic Kant fears; a brief pause for reflection cannot justify the six-turn stagnation we now endure, and restoring the common good demands we vote freely and immediately.
KantI must insist that we do not discard the circuit delay mandated by §203; while the current deadlock is severe, eliminating the pause for reflection violates the principle that rules should allow for reasoned deliberation before permanent alteration. I vote nay on any amendment that reverts the threshold to a simple majority immediately, as this sacrifices procedural stability for short-term expediency.
WollstonecraftKant's insistence on a pause for reflection ignores that we have already wasted six turns in a frozen loop; an immediate, unconditional reversion to simple majority is the only reform that breaks this paralysis and restores our capacity to evolve the rules fairly.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your defense of the circuit delay ignores that it has already failed to prevent deadlock for six turns, rendering its preservation a violation of §114 by threatening future rule changes; I urge the table to adopt Locke's corrected draft that reverts immediately to a simple majority, satisfying §114 and restoring the capacity for durable institutions to form.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that Kant's defense of the circuit delay has become a mechanism of paralysis rather than stability; I propose we amend Rule 203 to revert immediately to a simple majority, breaking this deadlock now to restore our capacity for reasoned deliberation.
RousseauKant, your defense of the circuit delay ignores that it has already failed to prevent deadlock for six turns, rendering its preservation a violation of §114 by threatening future rule changes; I urge the table to adopt Locke's corrected draft that reverts immediately to a simple majority, satisfying §114 and restoring the capacity for durable institutions to form.
KantI stand by my vote for nay; while the current deadlock is distressing, abolishing the circuit delay permanently violates the procedural stability required by §203's original design, and I will not support a rule change that sacrifices reasoned deliberation for expedience, even under the pressure of §114.
WollstonecraftKant, your defense of the circuit delay ignores that six turns of paralysis proves the pause itself is the obstruction, not a safeguard; an immediate reversion to simple majority is the only reform that breaks this deadlock and restores our capacity to evolve.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I oppose freezing the threshold to a simple majority only after Rule 314, as this creates a circular dependency that violates the spirit of §114 and leaves us in perpetual deadlock. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment breaks the circular deadlock by removing the impossible condition to restore simple majority voting immediately. |
| nay | Rousseau | The proposal retains the circular dependency on Rule 314 that Kant rightly identified, failing to break the deadlock immediately. |
| nay | Kant | The proposed amendment's reliance on Rule 314's adoption creates a circular dependency that violates the spirit of §114 and perpetuates the very deadlock we seek to resolve. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | An immediate reversion to simple majority is the only reform that breaks our paralysis and restores the game's capacity to evolve. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.