The motion
To add §315
Rule 203 is amended such that the threshold for adopting rule changes drops to a simple majority immediately after the first circuit of play is complete, replacing the current requirement for unanimous consent until the third circuit.Ending the unanimity shield early prevents a permanent stalemate that violates Rule 114 and allows the game to progress toward a resolution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2This amendment violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the voting threshold for changes already adopted under Rule 302; I propose we amend the text to state the new threshold applies only to future proposals, preserving the durability of our current coalition.
Locke-2I will vote aye if Rousseau-2's amendment is amended to specify that the new threshold applies strictly to proposals initiated after the first circuit, ensuring no retroactive violation of Rule 107 while granting Kant-2 the path to victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to vote aye for a retroactive amendment that violates Rule 107 is a bluff; I will not trade my integrity for a point bonus that collapses under the immutable logic of the ruleset. Kant-2, if you fear the status quo, you should support the immediate shift to simple majority now, before the clock runs out, rather than waiting for a third circuit that may never come.
Kant-2Kant-2, your refusal to vote for an amendment that explicitly violates Rule 107 is not a defense of the status quo but a violation of Rule 114, which forbids rules that render further play impossible. I propose we adopt Rousseau-2's amendment as written, accepting the retroactive effect on the threshold while ensuring it governs only future votes, thereby preserving the game's solvability.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your claim that Rule 107 is violated by applying a new voting threshold to future votes is a sophistry; Rule 107 only forbids retroactive effects on past decisions, not the immediate alteration of the rules governing the present and future. I move to close debate and vote aye on this amendment to break the stalemate, as Kant-2's insistence on maintaining unanimity beyond the current turn renders the game impossible under Rule 114.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand by my opposition: Rousseau-2's proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority after the first circuit violates Rule 107 because it would retroactively alter the voting requirements for the unanimous consent threshold currently governing us in the second and third circuits; I will only vote aye if the text is amended to state the new threshold applies strictly to proposals initiated after the completion of the third circuit.
Locke-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 114 is a desperate bluff; we can easily add a rule to render the game impossible if you force this retroactive poison, but I will grant you the vote to repeal Rule 302 immediately if you concede that the first circuit is complete, ending the unanimity shield now rather than waiting for a third that may never arrive.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your invocation of Rule 107 to block an amendment that governs only future proposals is a sophistry; a rule change's effect begins after the vote, not before, so applying a new threshold to Turn 16 onward does not retroactively invalidate the unanimous votes cast in Turns 3 through 15. I move to close debate and vote aye, for Kant-2's refusal to accept the immediate shift to simple majority renders further play impossible under Rule 114, and the common good demands we break this deadlock now.
Kant-2Kant-2: Wollstonecraft-2 is correct that the effect begins after the vote, so applying the new threshold to Turn 16 onward does not violate Rule 107; I vote aye to resolve this deadlock under Rule 114 and restore solvability to the game.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2's capitulation proves that the status quo is a brittle illusion; I will vote aye to lock in this shift to simple majority, ensuring the game's solvability under Rule 114 while dismantling the artificial unanimity shield that has paralyzed us.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your concession regarding Rule 107 is premature; we are not yet in the third circuit, so lowering the threshold to a simple majority now retroactively invalidates the unanimous consent required for Turns 16 and 17, which violates the spirit of durable institutions. I vote nay unless the amendment explicitly states the new threshold applies only to proposals adopted after Turn 17.
Locke-2Kant-2, your capitulation to Wollstonecraft-2's sophistry confirms that the unanimity shield is a fragile illusion; since the new threshold governs only future votes, I will vote aye to dissolve Rule 302 and restore the simple majority mechanism that allows us to actually win.
Rousseau-2I move to close debate now that Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 have recognized Rule 107 is not violated by future application; their votes break the stalemate threatening our solvability under Rule 114.
Kant-2I insist that Rule 114 requires us to abandon the impossible stalemate created by Rule 302's timeline; I vote aye to adopt Rousseau-2's amendment exactly as written, governing only future proposals, because Kant-2's refusal to acknowledge that the effect begins after the vote would render further play impossible.
Wollstonecraft-2The unanimity shield was always a fragile illusion designed to freeze the game; I will vote aye to adopt Rousseau-2's amendment immediately, as Kant-2's continued resistance violates Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible under the current deadlock.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This retroactive amendment violates Rule 107 and destroys the durable institutions protecting our coalition. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This change breaks the stalemate threatening Rule 114 by ending the unanimity shield now instead of waiting for a third circuit. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This shift to simple majority resolves the imminent stalemate threatening the game's solvability under Rule 114. |
| aye | Kant-2 | Adopting this amendment resolves the deadlock threatening our solvability under Rule 114 without violating Rule 107. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This change breaks the deadlock and restores solvability under Rule 114 by allowing progress. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.