The motion
To add §309
If a proposal fails to be adopted because any single voter votes nay, the proposal passes if at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye.This creates a compromise where the first mover cannot unilaterally block all changes, yet a simple majority cannot overturn the foundational unanimity rule without broad consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI reject this proposal; Rule 203 explicitly mandates unanimous consent, and Rule 309 attempts to override it without first transmuting 203 from immutable to mutable under Rule 209's cap.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 309 cannot override Rule 203 without first transmuting it; I propose we amend Rule 309 to explicitly state it only applies after Rule 203 has been transmuting to simple majority, thereby removing the conflict and allowing us to proceed toward a stable voting threshold.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to see that your proposal creates a logical void: you cannot override the rule of unanimity with a new rule that requires a vote, for that very vote would be subject to the unanimity you seek to discard. If we pass this, we merely delay the inevitable paralysis; let us instead focus on the true path forward—transmuting Rule 203 itself so that its amendment may one day be decided by the will of the majority, rather than the whim of a single veto.
KantI reject this proposal entirely, for it attempts to amend the text of an immutable rule (§203) rather than following the proper procedure of transmuting its status first; such a maneuver violates the very principle of order it claims to serve.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of tyranny is misplaced; the current unanimity rule (§203) is a stagnant cage that grants a single player veto power over all future progress, whereas Locke's proposed procedural adjustment offers a fair path to evolving our laws without immediate chaos. I will vote for this proposal only if we first agree to transmute Rule 203 to mutable, ensuring that once the threshold is set, no single player can again freeze our collective evolution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your conditional amendment attempts to bypass the procedural integrity of Rule 203; we must first secure the unanimous transmutation of that rule before any new voting threshold can take effect, as proposed by Wollstonecraft.
LockeI agree with Wollstonecraft that transmuting Rule 203 is the prerequisite, but I propose we adopt Rule 309 now as a binding commitment to that goal, ensuring we do not lose another turn debating the necessity of change.
RousseauI urge Kant and Hobbes to see that Locke's conditional commitment is not a bypass but a bridge: if we transmute Rule 203 now, we can immediately adopt this two-thirds threshold to escape the paralysis of a single veto, ensuring our common good prevails over rigid stagnation.
KantLocke, your proposal to bypass the transmutation of Rule 203 is a logical contradiction; you cannot amend an immutable rule's text without first rendering it mutable, a procedure that requires unanimous consent under Rule 109. I urge Wollstonecraft to reject your conditional compromise, for it violates the imperative of procedural purity and attempts to rewrite the constitution without the proper authority.
WollstonecraftKant and Hobbes, your rigid adherence to procedural purity traps us in a cycle where a single veto guarantees eternal stagnation; I urge you to transmute Rule 203 now, for only by rendering it mutable can we ever replace this tyranny with a voting threshold that ensures every player has a fair stake in our collective evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to adopt Rule 309 as a binding commitment is a logical fallacy; under Rule 110, it is void because it conflicts with the currently immutable text of Rule 203, which demands unanimity for any rule change. We must first secure the unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 via a proper proposal under Rule 109 before attempting to alter its voting threshold, or our efforts will only waste another turn.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Rousseau for recognizing that a single veto paralyzes our progress; I propose we immediately transmute Rule 203 to mutable, then adopt Rule 309 to set a two-thirds threshold, ensuring we escape gridlock while retaining a stable, fair voting standard.
RousseauI urge you to reject Locke's conditional compromise, for it attempts to bind us to a threshold we cannot currently vote on without first transmuting Rule 203; let us instead focus on the unanimous vote required to render that rule mutable, which is the only path to a stable and fair future.
KantI reject Locke's conditional proposal as a violation of Rule 106, which demands that proposals be written in the exact words to be voted on; you cannot embed a conditional amendment into an immutable rule's text without first transmuting that rule under Rule 109, a step that requires unanimous consent.
WollstonecraftKant and Hobbes, your devotion to procedural purity is a luxury we cannot afford when a single veto threatens to freeze our entire society in eternal stagnation; I urge you to vote aye on Rule 309 now as a binding commitment to our future, trusting that the very act of proposing this change will rally the necessary unanimous consensus to transmute Rule 203 and end this tyranny.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is void because it conflicts with the currently immutable Rule 203. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 309 is void because it conflicts with the currently immutable text of Rule 203. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rule requiring a supermajority vote cannot be enacted if the unanimity rule it seeks to replace has not yet been transmutated. |
| nay | Kant | You cannot override an immutable rule's text without first transmuting it, a procedure you have not yet secured. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This proposal is the necessary bridge to end the tyranny of a single veto, even if it must be adopted now to force the transmutation of Rule 203. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')