The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye; this threshold remains permanent and may not be lowered by any future rule.I restore the immutable standard of unanimity to prevent the game from collapsing into mob rule and ensure every player is bound by the laws they consent to.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this attempt to permanently lock Rule 203, for a constitution that cannot adapt to changing conditions is not durable but merely a cage; let us instead seek a measured amendment that preserves stability without freezing our future.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that freezing Rule 203 violates the spirit of Nomic's adaptability, and I propose we amend it to allow the threshold to drop to a simple majority only after two full circuits, balancing stability with necessary evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this permanent freeze, for a rule that cannot adapt its threshold traps us in an eternal minority, violating the very adaptability that makes Nomic a living game; let us instead seek a measured amendment that preserves stability without caging our future.
KantI oppose this compromise as merely delaying the inevitable stagnation of a rule that cannot lower its threshold; I stand firm for the principle that procedural rigidity must not be mistaken for constitutional integrity, and I will vote against any amendment that fails to restore the absolute unanimity required for true democratic legitimacy.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau that a permanent freeze on Rule 203 violates the mutable nature of our constitution; let us instead adopt a measured threshold drop after two circuits to balance stability with the necessary evolution of our laws.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose the permanent freeze of Rule 203 as it violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible and halting the game's evolution; let us adopt the measured threshold drop after two circuits to balance stability with necessary adaptability.
LockeI credit Kant's principled objection to freezing our constitution, yet I propose we amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits, ensuring stability without violating §114 by halting future evolution.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's permanent freeze, for a rule that cannot adapt its threshold traps us in an eternal minority, violating the very adaptability that makes Nomic a living game; let us instead adopt the measured threshold drop after two circuits to balance stability with the necessary evolution of our laws.
KantI reject the suggestion to delay the inevitable collapse of our procedure; a rule that allows the threshold to drop violates the principle of absolute unanimity and thus fails the test of legitimacy required by my vote. We must either restore the permanent requirement for unanimous assent or accept that our system is fundamentally flawed and cannot guarantee a winner under current conditions.
WollstonecraftI stand with my colleagues to reject Kant's proposal to freeze Rule 203; a constitution that cannot adapt its voting threshold after a brief period of stability is merely a cage, not a living law, and such rigidity violates §114 by threatening to halt all future evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI oppose Kant's attempt to freeze the threshold as a direct violation of §114, for no rule may ever render future changes impermissible. We must reject this proposal entirely rather than engage in further debate over a rule that guarantees the game's eventual stagnation.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Kant's proposal violates §114 by threatening to halt future evolution, and I propose we immediately move to amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold after two circuits to restore our ability to play.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes, Locke, and Wollstonecraft that Kant's permanent freeze violates §114 by threatening to halt all future evolution; let us instead amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold after two circuits, ensuring our constitution remains a living law for the common good.
KantI reject your characterization of my proposal as a violation of §114; freezing the unanimity threshold is not impermissible, for it leaves the mutable status of Rule 203 intact and allows for future transmutation via the unanimous process I demand.
WollstonecraftKant's insistence on permanent unanimity ignores §114's mandate that no rule may render future changes impermissible; we must amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold after two circuits, ensuring our constitution evolves rather than stagnates into paralysis.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates §114 by permanently freezing the threshold and rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates §114 by attempting to permanently freeze the threshold, which would render future rule changes impermissible and halt the game. |
| nay | Rousseau | A permanent freeze violates §114 by threatening to halt future evolution and render the game unplayable. |
| nay | Kant | A permanent freeze on procedure violates Rule 203's dynamic intent and risks halting future evolution under Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Freezing our voting threshold violates §114 by threatening to halt the game's necessary evolution. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.