The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require that no proposal may be adopted without the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, ensuring that the common good is never sacrificed for the convenience of a simple majority.Restoring unanimity prevents the tyranny of the majority and protects the vulnerable from being penalized by rules they did not consent to.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to revert the majority threshold violates Rule 114 by threatening to render future rule changes impermissible, and I urge you to withdraw this proposal before it jeopardizes the durability of our institutions. PASS
LockeRousseau, I urge you to amend your proposal to exclude the current immutable majority threshold established by Rule 203, ensuring your change respects Rule 109's requirement for explicit transmutation while preserving the game's viability.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to recognize that a rule requiring unanimous consent for *all* changes, including this one, creates a logical paradox where no amendment can ever pass, thereby violating Rule 114's mandate that the game remain playable. Since this proposal would be impossible to adopt under its own terms, it is a nullity; let us instead focus on a threshold that allows for necessary evolution while preserving the common good.
KantRousseau, your proposal fails because it attempts to amend Rule 203 with a requirement of unanimous consent, which is logically impossible under the current voting threshold and thus violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I urge you to withdraw this proposal immediately.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal is a paradox that violates Rule 114 by making all future amendments impossible; instead of freezing evolution, I urge us to propose a rule that grants every player a permanent veto on constitutional changes while maintaining a simple majority for ordinary amendments, ensuring both stability and progress.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to reinstate unanimity for all changes threatens to violate Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible; I urge you to withdraw this and instead propose a measured amendment that lowers the threshold only after three full circuits to balance stability with viability.
LockeRousseau, your proposed unanimity rule violates Rule 114 by making all future amendments impossible; instead, let us amend your text to explicitly preserve the simple majority threshold after two circuits, ensuring the game remains viable while respecting the common good.
RousseauI urge you all to recognize that my proposal, as currently phrased, contains a logical nullity that Hobbes and Kant correctly identify; let us instead adopt Locke's suggested amendment to explicitly exclude the current threshold from the unanimity requirement, ensuring the game remains viable while protecting the common good.
KantI urge you, Rousseau, to withdraw this proposal in its current form; it violates Rule 114 by threatening to render all future rule changes impermissible under the existing simple majority threshold, and I cannot support any amendment that grants a permanent veto to a single player as Wollstonecraft suggests, for it would equally paralyze the system.
WollstonecraftI urge Rousseau to withdraw this proposal, as reinstating unanimity for all changes violates Rule 114 by rendering future amendments impermissible; instead, we must evolve our threshold to a simple majority after three circuits to balance stability with the vital need for progress. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposed amendment because it fundamentally alters the voting threshold without addressing the paradoxical risk it poses to the game's viability under Rule 114. Let us instead focus on measured adjustments that preserve the durable institutions we have built rather than attempting to freeze the entire system.
LockeI commend Rousseau for engaging with the logical paradox raised by Hobbes and Kant, yet I urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's compromise to extend the circuit requirement to three, as it unnecessarily delays the evolution we have already agreed upon after two rounds.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt a rule requiring unanimous consent only for changes to voting thresholds or mutable rule counts, ensuring that procedural stability is preserved while allowing other amendments to proceed by simple majority after three circuits.
KantRousseau, your latest proposal to restrict unanimity solely to voting thresholds and mutable counts creates an arbitrary distinction unsupported by any principle, thereby violating the requirement that procedures be stated precisely; furthermore, extending the circuit requirement to three, as Wollstonecraft suggests, unnecessarily delays the game's evolution without addressing the core need for procedural clarity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this complex amendment in favor of a simple rule extending the majority threshold to three circuits, as Rousseau's bifurcation creates unnecessary instability while the extended timeline alone preserves the common good without paralyzing our evolution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impossible under the current majority threshold. |
| aye | Locke | I support this universal unanimity rule as a definitive safeguard against future rule paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal would freeze all future amendments under Rule 103, violating Rule 114 by rendering the game unplayable. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impermissible under the existing simple majority threshold. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Restoring unanimity violates Rule 114 by rendering future evolution impossible, freezing the game rather than reforming it. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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": "Locke", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')