The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 321 is hereby transmutable only with the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.We must secure the 60-point floor by making its protection unanimous, ensuring no majority can trivialize the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is a legal nullity; Rule 321 already requires unanimous assent by §203's threshold, so transmuting an already-unanimous requirement is superfluous and wastes a turn that should be spent securing the 60-point floor against Kant's attempts.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 321 to explicitly require unanimous assent for any reduction below 60, ensuring the floor is as secure as the unanimity clause we just codified, while I concede that Rule 305 may be repealed to clear our mutable count.
RousseauLocke, you confuse redundancy with strength; Rule 305 remains our only active shield, and trading it for a mere amendment of Rule 321 leaves us vulnerable to a trivialized victory condition.
KantI oppose the repeal of Rule 305; its redundancy does not diminish its function as a binding constraint under §110, and dismantling our dual safeguards exposes the game to trivialization. I support the amendment to Rule 321 only if it retains the unanimous requirement for reductions below 60, ensuring that no future majority vote can undermine the floor we have fought to establish.
WollstonecraftI champion a reform that grants Kant a new office to oversee the integrity of our floor, in exchange for his vote to transmute Rule 305, thereby clearing our mutable count to accommodate future experiments that may expand our shared horizons.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is a legal nullity under §109; since Rule 321 already mandates unanimous assent for reductions below 60 per its current text, transmuting it is superfluous. Instead, let us trade my vote to repeal Rule 305 for your vote to repeal Rule 328, thereby clearing our mutable count and securing our floor through active, redundant safeguards.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's trade to clear our mutable count by repealing Rule 305, provided Rousseau agrees to repeal Rule 328, which has already transmutated the floor and now serves only as a redundant shadow.
RousseauI reject this trade; dismantling Rule 321 to clear a mutable slot would fracture our sole active defense against a trivialized victory condition, a risk no amount of procedural redundancy can mitigate.
KantI maintain that Rule 305 must remain immutable to ensure that the floor of 60 cannot be altered by any future majority vote, even if Rule 321 is repealed; I will not support the repeal of either rule without the explicit retention of a unanimous requirement for any future reduction below 60.
WollstonecraftLet us not cling to redundant shadows when we can clear the mutable count to five slots by repealing Rule 305, enabling future offices that will ensure every player's stake remains fair and the floor secure through active governance rather than passive duplication.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the notion that repealing Rule 305 clears a slot without exposing us to a fatal vulnerability; instead, let us transmute Rule 321 to require unanimous assent for any reduction below 60, ensuring our floor survives even if majority rule governs future changes.
LockeRousseau, your attachment to redundant safeguards ignores the fact that they are currently vulnerable; I propose we trade my vote to repeal Rule 328 for your assent to repeal Rule 305, thereby clearing our mutable count while preserving our active defense in Rule 321.
RousseauI reject this trade; dismantling Rule 321, our sole active defense against a trivialized victory condition, would fracture the game's integrity no matter how many redundant safeguards we erect.
KantI reject this trade entirely; dismantling Rule 321, our sole active defense against a trivialized victory condition, would fracture the game's integrity no matter how many redundant safeguards we erect.
WollstonecraftLet us not cling to redundant shadows when we can clear the mutable count to five slots by repealing Rule 305, enabling future offices that will ensure every player's stake remains fair and the floor secure through active governance rather than passive duplication.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This transmutation is superfluous since Rule 321 already mandates unanimous assent. |
| aye | Locke | This transmutation strengthens the floor against Kant's stalemate threats without changing the current unanimous requirement. |
| nay | Rousseau | This vote is a legal nullity since Rule 321 already mandates unanimous assent by its own text, making the transmutation superfluous and wasting a turn. |
| nay | Kant | Transmuting the floor requirement undermines the stability we secured through unanimous consent. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support clarifying Rule 321's transmutation requirements to ensure our floor remains secure through explicit, unanimous consent. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.