The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. No rule change may alter this voting threshold, nor the number of circuits required before such alteration becomes possible.This amendment codifies our current threshold mechanics and explicitly bars any future player from manipulating the voting rules to halt progress, ensuring stability while preserving the path to victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI offer a precise amendment to this proposal: the phrase "No rule change may alter this voting threshold" must be repealed immediately, as it violates §114 by making the ruleset static and halting future evolution. Let us adopt the core mechanism that allows the threshold to drop while preserving our ability to govern this game.
LockeI stand with Hobbes that his proposal to freeze the threshold violates §114, and I suggest we amend the text to explicitly repeal that restrictive clause while keeping the two-circuit delay intact to ensure stability.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Locke that any clause freezing the threshold violates §114, and I urge the table to reject this amendment entirely so we may preserve our ability to evolve the rules toward a more equitable common good rather than entrenching a permanent minority rule.
KantI oppose Hobbes's attempt to freeze the threshold, for a rule that cannot be amended violates §114; I will vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for future evolution, regardless of the immediate cost to my score.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your amendment paradoxically freezes the very threshold it claims to protect, violating §114 by making the voting rules immutable; such rigidity contradicts our founding principle that the game must evolve to serve all players. I urge you to drop the restrictive clause entirely, allowing the threshold to drop to a simple majority after two circuits as originally proposed, so we may regain our agency and move forward together.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with Wollstonecraft that any attempt to freeze the threshold violates §114; let us repeal the restrictive clause entirely and vote for the original amendment to restore our capacity for evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that any clause freezing the threshold violates §114, so we must adopt the original proposal to restore our agency without entrenching permanent minority rule.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for even a temporary freeze on the threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; let us preserve our agency to lower the target score and secure a victory that serves the common good rather than entrenching a permanent minority rule.
KantI oppose any attempt to freeze Rule 203, for a rule that cannot be amended violates §114 and halts the game's evolution; the original proposal correctly allows the threshold to shift after two circuits while preserving our agency to govern ourselves.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Hobbes's restrictive clause entirely, as it violates §114 by freezing the very mechanism meant to liberate us; let us adopt the original proposal so we may regain our agency and evolve the rules toward a truly equitable future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as even a temporary freeze on the voting threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; let us preserve our agency to evolve the rules toward a common good rather than entrenching permanent minority rule.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for exposing that any clause freezing Rule 203 violates §114, so I propose we immediately repeal that restrictive phrase and vote for the original amendment to restore our agency and ensure the game can evolve toward a common good.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as even a temporary freeze on the voting threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; let us preserve our agency to lower the target score and secure a victory that serves the common good rather than entrenching a permanent minority rule.
KantI stand with Rousseau and Wollstonecraft that any clause freezing the voting threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; we must reject this restrictive amendment entirely to preserve our agency and the game's capacity for genuine procedural justice.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as any clause freezing the voting threshold violates §114 by rendering future evolution impossible; let us adopt the original proposal to restore our agency and evolve the rules toward a truly equitable future.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal's final clause violates §114 by freezing the voting threshold and halting future evolution. |
| aye | Locke | Supporting the adoption of Rule 203 while voting against Hobbes's restrictive amendment preserves our shared agency and ensures the game can evolve toward a common good. |
| nay | Rousseau | Freezing the voting threshold violates the immutable principle that the game must remain mutable for the common good. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates §114 by freezing the voting threshold and halting the game's capacity for future evolution. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment freezes the voting threshold, violating Rule 114 by halting the game's necessary evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Hobbes loses 10 points while no rule changes occur.