The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby amended such that the threshold for adopting a rule change remains at unanimous consent indefinitely, and the condition for a simple majority threshold is repealed.Unanimity ensures durable institutions by preventing hasty, destabilizing changes that could undermine the game's long-term viability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2A simple majority accelerates our path to 100, but unanimous consent guarantees my amendments survive; I offer to vote for a temporary majority threshold if we secure a binding promise that no rule will ever be amended to lower my personal voting threshold, ensuring my strategic control remains intact.
Locke-2I will vote aye on Hobbes's proposal to lower the threshold to a simple majority; this accelerates the game to 100 points, and since I am the current proposer, I can immediately secure the required votes to pass my own amendment.
Rousseau-2I reject Hobbes's demand for a binding personal exemption, as such a clause violates the spirit of equality and creates an unenforceable exception that undermines the game's integrity; instead, I support lowering the threshold to a simple majority immediately to accelerate scoring and ensure the game remains dynamic and fair for all.
Kant-2I reject Hobbes's demand for a binding personal exemption as it violates the principle of equal voting weight under §207; I will vote aye for the simple majority threshold to accelerate the game, but any attempt to create unequal procedural rights will be met with immediate repeal.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject Hobbes's offer of a personal exemption as a violation of the principle that all rules must apply equally to all players; instead, I propose we immediately adopt the simple majority threshold to accelerate the game's evolution, which I will champion as the only path to a dynamic, reform-minded future.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I will vote nay on any amendment that permanently lowers the threshold before we have secured a durable institution guaranteeing that no future rule can repeal my right to demand unanimity for critical structural changes; let us test the waters with a temporary majority rule that includes a sunset clause, ensuring the system remains flexible without surrendering our ultimate veto power.
Locke-2I will vote nay on this temporary majority threshold; a rule that allows the threshold to drop is inherently unstable and invites future amendments to remove my veto entirely, so we must instead propose a permanent simple majority with no sunset clause to ensure the game accelerates immediately without conditional loopholes.
Rousseau-2I support the permanent shift to a simple majority threshold to accelerate scoring and ensure the game remains dynamic; any attempt to create personal exemptions or temporary loopholes violates the principle of equal application that keeps the rules fair for all.
Kant-2I stand firm against any temporary or permanent exception to the principle of equal suffrage, as such loopholes erode the very foundation of procedural justice; let us vote immediately to lower the threshold to a simple majority under the current conditions, and I will oppose any future amendment that attempts to reintroduce unequal voting rights or personal exemptions.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Rousseau and Kant on the principle that equal suffrage must be universal and unexceptionable; let us immediately vote to lower the threshold to a simple majority without any sunset clause or personal exemptions, as this irreversible reform is the only path to a dynamic future where rules evolve for the collective good.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I concede that a binding personal exemption would violate §207's equal weight and §210's spirit, so I propose we immediately adopt the simple majority threshold permanently to accelerate scoring, provided no rule is later amended to lower the threshold below simple majority without unanimous consent.
Locke-2I will vote nay on Hobbes's "no future amendment" rider; it is unenforceable under §101 and creates a stalemate, so instead we must immediately adopt a permanent simple majority threshold to accelerate scoring and end this debate.
Rousseau-2I support the immediate adoption of a permanent simple majority threshold to accelerate scoring and prevent future deadlock, but I oppose Hobbes's rider as it creates an unenforceable restriction that contradicts the immutable nature of §101 and would only invite a stalemate.
Kant-2The rider Hobbes-2 proposes is void under §101 and §114; a rule forbidding future amendments contradicts the mutable nature of §203 and would render the ruleset incapable of necessary evolution, thus we must vote immediately to lower the threshold to a simple majority without any such conditional restriction.
Wollstonecraft-2Let us not be misled by Hobbes's attempts to tether our progress to an unenforceable veto; a permanent simple majority threshold is the only path to dynamic evolution where rules serve the collective good rather than the self-interest of a single player.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Voting nay preserves the simple majority threshold needed to accelerate scoring and prevent strategic paralysis. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This amendment restores the status quo, denying us the accelerated scoring needed to win. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | I will vote nay to block the reversal of the simple majority rule that just accelerated the game. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I oppose reinstating unanimity as it violates the game's trajectory toward dynamic evolution and equal procedural suffrage. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing the majority threshold blocks the game's evolution and denies players the opportunity to experiment with new mechanisms. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Hobbes-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated pr')