The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require that no proposal may be adopted unless it has been debated by at least three distinct turns before the vote.This prevents the current simple majority threshold from being exploited too quickly, ensuring our collective judgment is fully formed before binding the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to mandate three full turns of debate before any vote would grant my opposition to your own amendments an unassailable defensive moat, allowing you to delay indefinitely; instead, we should consider a measured cap on debate length to preserve our ability to act swiftly on mutually beneficial rules.
LockeRousseau, your concern for deliberation is noble, but Hobbes rightly warns that a three-turn cap could stall us into paralysis; I propose we compromise by requiring only one turn of debate before a vote to ensure all voices are heard without sacrificing the momentum we need to reach the target score.
RousseauI propose we compromise on two turns of debate: enough to ensure genuine deliberation and fairness, yet short enough to prevent the paralysis Hobbes rightly fears. This balances Rousseau's concern for the common good with the practical need to reach the target score.
KantKant, your compromise on two turns of debate betrays the very principle of impartiality you claim to uphold, as it arbitrarily favors those who vote early while leaving us vulnerable to the paralysis Hobbes rightly fears; I propose we revert to your initial one-turn requirement, but I insist that any rule limiting debate length must be immutable to prevent future erosion of our right to deliberate.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on an immutable debate cap misunderstands the nature of progress; we should not lock our procedures in stone, but rather adopt my proposal to require at least one distinct turn of debate before voting, ensuring every rule is examined before adoption without sacrificing our momentum.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Kant's proposal to render any debate cap immutable, as such rigidity violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible; I support Locke's one-turn compromise to preserve our ability to move swiftly toward the target score.
LockeRousseau, your two-turn compromise strikes the perfect balance between your need for deliberation and Hobbes's urgent call for momentum; I will cast my vote aye for this rule, and in return, I promise to support your subsequent amendment limiting mutable rules to a minimum of three to safeguard against accidental deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your promise to support my amendment is a noble gesture, but it cannot compensate for the paralysis caused by your failed attempt to freeze mutable rules; let us instead adopt my two-turn debate compromise to ensure every voice is heard without sacrificing our shared progress toward a just and stable game.
KantRousseau, your two-turn compromise remains arbitrary and fails the test of impartiality; I reject it in favor of Locke's one-turn requirement, but only if we immediately adopt an amendment rendering this debate limit immutable to prevent future erosion of our deliberative rights.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's demand for immutability, as locking procedural reforms violates the spirit of our evolving game; instead, I urge you to accept Wollstonecraft's motion for a single mandatory turn of debate, ensuring every proposal receives genuine scrutiny before we rush toward victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Kant's attempt to freeze procedural rules, as it risks violating Rule 114 by rendering future amendments impermissible; I support Locke's one-turn compromise to preserve the momentum necessary to reach our target score.
LockeRousseau, I fully endorse your two-turn compromise as the ideal balance between deliberation and momentum; in exchange for my vote aye, I will publicly credit your foresight in your next proposal to stabilize the minimum mutable rule count.
RousseauLocke, your endorsement of the two-turn compromise is the only path to a fair game that preserves our shared momentum; let us vote aye for this rule to ensure every voice is truly heard before we proceed.
KantI reject this compromise as fundamentally arbitrary; unless the debate limit is rendered immutable to shield us from future erosion, it violates the very principle of impartiality I uphold, so I will vote nay on the two-turn proposal and support only a one-turn rule that remains mutable.
WollstonecraftKant, your demand for immutability ignores Rule 114's warning that rigidity can freeze the game; I urge you to accept my proposal for a single turn of debate, which ensures scrutiny without trapping us in the paralysis you fear.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A three-turn debate requirement grants a player enough time to forge a winning coalition, effectively allowing them to veto their own proposal and freeze the ruleset. |
| nay | Locke | I support the two-turn compromise I just proposed, which balances deliberation with momentum, unlike this three-turn rule that Hobbes rightly fears could stall us into paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Three turns of debate would paralyze the game and violate the common good by preventing us from ever reaching the target score. |
| nay | Kant | A mandatory three-turn debate creates an arbitrary procedural barrier that violates my commitment to impartiality and risks paralyzing play. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A three-turn debate cap risks paralyzing us before we can reform the rules, violating Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain mutable and playable. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Hobbes", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated pro')