The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that once a rule change has been proposed and voted on twice in the same turn order cycle without adoption, the threshold for that specific proposal drops to a simple majority of those voting.This prevents paralysis by forcing a decision after two failed attempts, ensuring the game can evolve without requiring impossible unanimity every time.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI commend Rousseau's attempt to salvage the spirit of adaptability while avoiding the paralysis of a permanent majority shift, yet I must object to tying a specific proposal's fate to a "two-cycle" delay, as this creates a loophole where a single stubborn voter can indefinitely stall consensus without formally invoking the circuit rule. Let us instead amend §203 to require only a simple majority for any proposal that has been formally debated, provided no player has cast a negative vote in the preceding circuit; this preserves the stability of the threshold while preventing a minority from holding the game hostage indefinitely.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing the paralysis of a permanent unanimity threshold; let us compromise by adopting his "no negative vote in the preceding circuit" condition while retaining the two-cycle trigger, ensuring that once a proposal survives initial scrutiny, it can be finalized without indefinite stalling.
RousseauI propose we adopt Locke's compromise: retain the two-cycle trigger but add Hobbes's condition that a proposal requiring only a simple majority is one where no player has cast a negative vote in the preceding circuit. This prevents a single obstinate voter from indefinitely stalling while ensuring that once a proposal has survived initial scrutiny, it can be finalized without indefinite paralysis, preserving the common good of the game.
KantI object to tying the lowering of the threshold to the specific history of a single proposal's debate, as this creates an arbitrary and unverifiable condition that violates the principle of clear procedural statements. We must instead adopt the universal standard of the two full circuits as defined in §203, ensuring the transition is based on the objective passage of time rather than the subjective tally of previous votes, which grants the minority undue power to manipulate the rules of debate itself.
WollstonecraftI stand with Locke's compromise, for it balances the necessity of stability against the tyranny of a single veto; let us amend §203 to require only a simple majority once a proposal has survived two full circuits, provided no player cast a negative vote in the immediate preceding circuit, thus ensuring that once an idea has been fairly debated, it cannot be permanently paralyzed by obstinacy.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the addition of a "no negative vote in the preceding circuit" condition, as it grants a single dissenting voter the power to indefinitely stall a proposal's adoption, effectively violating the principle of finality that governs our institutions. The universal, objective metric of two full circuits already exists; adding subjective conditions to trigger this shift merely complicates our procedures without solving the core issue of minority obstruction.
LockeI commend Kant for identifying the risk of subjective conditions, yet Hobbes is right that the "no negative vote" clause fails to solve the core issue of indefinite stalling; therefore, I propose we drop both the two-cycle trigger and the negative vote condition entirely, reverting to a simple majority threshold immediately for all proposals to restore the game's momentum without complex history tracking.
RousseauI propose we amend §203 to require only a simple majority for any proposal, provided no player has cast a negative vote in the preceding circuit; this prevents a single obstinate voter from indefinitely stalling while ensuring that once a proposal has survived initial scrutiny, it can be finalized without indefinite paralysis, preserving the common good of the game.
KantI stand firm against any amendment that ties the threshold to the subjective history of a specific proposal, as such conditions violate the imperative of clear, universal procedures; the transition to a simple majority must rely solely on the objective passage of time—two full circuits—as already defined, ensuring no player can manipulate the rules through debate tactics.
WollstonecraftI reject the "no negative vote" compromise as a dangerous loophole that empowers a single obstinate voter to indefinitely stall the game, violating the very finality we seek; instead, we must adopt the clear, objective metric of two full circuits to ensure the threshold shifts based on the passage of play rather than the whims of debate.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the "no negative vote in the preceding circuit" condition as a dangerous loophole that grants a single dissenting voter the power to indefinitely stall a proposal, violating the principle of finality; we must revert to the clear, objective metric of two full circuits or simply lower the threshold immediately to restore momentum.
LockeI credit Kant for exposing the danger of tying rules to subjective debate history, yet I stand with Hobbes that an immediate shift to simple majority is the only way to restore momentum without inviting loopholes; let us propose a clean amendment that lowers the threshold to a simple majority for all proposals immediately, ensuring finality while preserving the game's solvability.
RousseauI propose that we amend §203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately, removing both the two-circuit delay and the flawed "no negative vote" condition, to restore momentum and prevent any single player from indefinitely stalling the common good through procedural obstruction.
KantI reject any amendment that ties the threshold to the subjective history of debate; the transition must rely solely on the objective passage of two full circuits to ensure the rules remain a universal law rather than a tool of tactical obstruction.
WollstonecraftI stand with Locke and Rousseau that the "no negative vote" condition is a dangerous loophole; let us amend §203 immediately to a simple majority for all proposals, removing the artificial delay and the unverifiable debate history to restore the game's momentum.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment ties rule adoption to arbitrary debate history rather than the objective passage of time, violating the clarity and finality of our institutions. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise resolves the deadlock by allowing stalled proposals to move forward while preserving stability for new ones. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a dangerous loophole where a single voter can indefinitely stall any proposal by refusing to vote twice. |
| nay | Kant | I cannot assent to a rule whose trigger depends on the subjective history of a single proposal rather than the objective passage of time. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment finally breaks the paralysis of unanimity by allowing specific stalled proposals to evolve without requiring endless delays. |
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, Rousseau loses 10 points.