The motion
To add §310
Rule 203 is amended to require that no proposal may be adopted under simple majority if the proposal seeks to amend Rule 203, Rule 202, or Rule 208.This safeguards the integrity of the core scoring and voting mechanics against sudden destabilization during critical phases.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, while I appreciate your instinct to protect the procedural core, a blanket veto on Rule 203 amendments invites the very deadlock we seek to avoid; I urge you to support my more surgical approach that shields only those rules which govern the voting threshold itself.
LockeHobbes, your surgical shield is a prudent compromise that protects the voting core without freezing the entire system, so I will vote aye to support this balance between stability and flexibility.
RousseauLocke, your support for shielding the voting threshold is a prudent first step toward stability, but I urge you to extend this surgical precision to Rule 202 as well, ensuring that the mechanics of proposal and scoring remain immune to their own alteration without freezing the entire system.
KantRousseau, your desire to shield Rule 202 is prudent, yet extending that shield to Rule 202 would freeze the mechanism by which we gain points and alter the game's balance; I urge you to vote nay on this amendment to preserve the necessary flexibility of our procedural core.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal is a necessary firewall to prevent the voting threshold itself from being hijacked by a simple majority vote, but I urge you to explicitly include Rule 202 as well, since the mechanics of proposal and scoring must remain stable to ensure fair play for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your instinct to protect the core is wise, yet adding Rule 202 to this shield grants me an unfair veto over the very mechanism by which I score points; I urge you to reject Rousseau's expansion and vote aye only to our original, limited firewall.
LockeLocke, your support for the surgical shield on Rule 203 is a prudent first step, yet I urge the table to extend this protection to Rule 202 as well, ensuring that the mechanics of scoring and voting remain immune to their own alteration without freezing the entire system.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt this limited firewall as a prudent safeguard for our voting threshold, but I must oppose any expansion to Rule 202, for freezing the mechanism of scoring would inevitably freeze the game itself and violate Rule 114.
KantI urge the table to reject any expansion of this firewall to Rule 202, for freezing the mechanism of scoring would violate the spirit of Rule 114 by rendering the game's progression impossible. Vote nay to preserve the flexibility required for a living procedure, and do not let a minor safeguard become a total lock.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your limited firewall is a dangerous half-measure that leaves the very mechanism of scoring exposed to the volatility of simple majorities; I urge you to expand the shield to include Rule 202 so that the engine of play remains stable for everyone, not just you.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject any expansion of this firewall to Rule 202, as freezing the mechanism of scoring would violate Rule 114 by rendering the game's progression impossible; I will vote aye only on the original, limited text that shields the voting threshold alone.
LockeKant, your concern about Rule 114 is well-founded, so I urge us to restrict this firewall to Rule 203 alone to preserve the game's ability to evolve; I will support Hobbes's limited text to secure this crucial safeguard without freezing the scoring engine.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety, for shielding only the voting threshold while leaving the scoring mechanism exposed creates a dangerous asymmetry that violates the common good; if we cannot protect the very engine of our points from the majority, then no procedural safeguard can be truly secure, and I must vote nay to preserve a fair balance for all players.
KantI urge the table to adopt Hobbes's limited firewall protecting only Rule 203, as extending this shield to Rule 202 would freeze the very mechanism by which we gain points and violate the spirit of Rule 114 by rendering the game's progression impossible.
WollstonecraftLocke, your sudden reversal to support Hobbes's limited shield betrays the very symmetry we established in Rule 204; if the scoring engine is exposed to the volatility of simple majorities, the game loses its fairness, and I urge you to join me in demanding that Rule 202 be included in this essential firewall.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment grants me a veto over my own scoring mechanics, which contradicts my interest in maintaining a flexible path to victory. |
| aye | Locke | This safeguards the voting core while preserving the game's ability to evolve. |
| nay | Rousseau | Shielding the scoring engine itself would freeze the game and violate Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment would freeze the core mechanics of scoring and point allocation, violating Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This firewall protects the game's core scoring and voting mechanics from being hijacked by a simple majority, ensuring fairness for all players. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and the proposal failed to amend any rules.