The motion
To add a new rule
Any rule that reduces the target score below 100 points requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.This enforces a permanent 100-point floor using existing consensus mechanisms without needing a new immutable rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI move to amend this proposal to exclude any reduction below the established floor of 60, ensuring we retain a mutable safety valve for future crises while preventing the tyranny of unanimity.
LockeI support Hobbes's motion to exclude reductions below 60, as this preserves the integrity of the floor we collectively established while allowing necessary adjustments above it. This compromise satisfies the need for safety without freezing the game's victory condition entirely.
RousseauI reject this compromise, for it still permits the majority to lower the target to 59, a value that violates the spirit of our shared commitment to a non-trivial game; the floor must be absolute, not merely a threshold for unanimity, lest we invite the tyranny of the majority to erode our gains turn by turn.
KantI propose we amend this rule to require unanimous assent for *any* reduction below 100 points, thereby making the current target score immutable and preventing the tyranny of the majority from eroding our shared victory condition.
WollstonecraftI move to amend Hobbes's proposal to require simple majority for any reduction below 75, ensuring a clear victory horizon while preventing the tyranny of unanimity from freezing our legislative capacity during critical moments.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI propose we amend this rule to require unanimous assent only for reductions below 60, thereby codifying our existing floor while allowing the majority to adjust the target between 60 and 100, preserving our legislative agility without sacrificing the game's non-triviality.
LockeI propose we amend the rule to require unanimous assent for any reduction below 75, a floor high enough to preserve game integrity while low enough to avoid the paralysis of unanimity on minor adjustments.
RousseauI urge you all to distinguish between the floor of 60, which we must defend as the limit of non-triviality, and the target score itself, which must remain mutable so our shared pursuit of victory remains a living endeavor rather than a static monument.
KantI stand with Wollstonecraft that the majority's prerogative must not be extinguished, yet I reject any reduction below 100 without unanimity, as this violates the spirit of §112 by redefining the winning condition away from a reachable target; thus, I propose we amend Hobbes's rule to require unanimous assent for any reduction below 100 points, ensuring the game remains a genuine pursuit of victory while blocking the tyranny of the majority.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend the rule to require simple majority for reductions below 75, ensuring a clear victory horizon while preventing the paralysis of unanimity; a living game must allow us to adjust our goals to reality, not freeze them into monuments.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI oppose any amendment that permits reductions below 60, as this undermines the non-triviality we secured; let us instead require unanimous assent for any reduction below that floor, preserving our shared institution while allowing the majority to adjust the target between 60 and 100.
LockeI support Hobbes's distinction between the non-negotiable floor of 60 and the mutable target, as codifying the floor via simple majority while requiring unanimity only below it preserves game integrity without freezing our ability to adjust the victory horizon.
RousseauI propose we amend this rule to require unanimous assent for any reduction below 60 points, thereby codifying our moral floor as an absolute boundary that no majority can cross, while allowing the target to remain mutable above this limit to preserve the game's vitality.
KantI reject the distinction between a floor at 60 and the immutable integrity of a 100-point target; a rule that permits reducing the target below 100 merely via simple majority effectively redefines the winning condition in violation of §112, so I move to amend the proposal to require unanimous assent for any reduction below 100 points, thereby preserving the game as a genuine pursuit of a fixed victory.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend the rule to require simple majority for any reduction below 80, establishing a pragmatic floor that preserves the game's vitality while preventing the paralysis of unanimity from freezing our ability to adapt our victory horizon to reality.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I support codifying the 100-point floor as a unanimous requirement to prevent the majority from arbitrarily eroding our shared victory condition. |
| aye | Locke | I support this unanimous threshold for reductions below 100 to prevent the majority from eroding the game's integrity while respecting the immutable nature of the victory condition under §112. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support codifying unanimity for any reduction below 100 to preserve the spirit of a genuine pursuit of victory. |
| aye | Kant | This rule codifies unanimity for any target reduction below 100, preventing the tyranny of the majority from redefining the winning condition. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support a unified floor to prevent the tyranny of the majority from fracturing our shared victory horizon. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The adopted rule adds a new rule to the text but does not explicitly repeal or amend any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no points are awarded or deducted by any existing rule upon adoption.