The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended to require unanimous consent only for amendments to Rule 203 itself; all other rule changes require a simple majority of eligible voters.This locks the unanimity shield for our voting threshold while allowing simple majority for all other necessary changes to prevent gridlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we amend Rule 203 to require unanimous consent only for amendments to Rule 203 itself, allowing simple majority for all other changes to restore functional progress while preserving the shield against total paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a total veto by a single player stalls us all; I will support this hybrid amendment to lock Rule 203's own structure while freeing other changes from unanimity.
RousseauFriends, this hybrid is a dangerous illusion; if a simple majority can alter Rule 203's voting threshold, they can immediately repeal the unanimity lock itself, destroying the very shield Hobbes claims to preserve. We must either keep our collective shield of unanimity intact or face the tyranny of the fleeting majority, but not pretend to have the best of both worlds.
KantRousseau, your fear is misplaced: the hybrid amendment explicitly excludes Rule 203's own structure from the simple majority, thereby preserving the shield against paralysis while granting us the functional progress you rightly crave.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of the majority's tyranny is the very paralysis I seek to cure; this hybrid amendment is not a betrayal of the shield but its necessary evolution to ensure the game can breathe. I will support this change to replace our current gridlock with a system where progress is possible for all, provided the core structure of our laws remains sacred.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear conflates the amendment of the voting threshold with the repeal of the threshold itself; the proposed hybrid explicitly preserves unanimity for changing Rule 203's adoption criteria while permitting simple majorities for all other changes, thereby securing the shield against total paralysis while restoring functional progress.
LockeI propose we add a clarifying sentence to Rule 311 stating that any attempt to amend Rule 203's adoption criteria itself requires unanimous consent, ensuring Rousseau's shield remains intact while we finally move forward.
RousseauI urge you to reject this deceptive hybrid, for it creates a logical trap where a simple majority could eventually dismantle the unanimity requirement by amending the very rule that governs such amendments; we must either preserve the indivisible shield of unanimity or accept the tyranny of the fleeting majority, but never pretend to enjoy the safety of both.
KantRousseau, your objection confuses the object of the amendment with the voting threshold: the proposed hybrid explicitly mandates that *only* amendments to Rule 203's adoption criteria require unanimity, thereby preserving the shield while allowing simple majorities for all other changes as you rightly desire. I will vote aye on this proposal, provided it is worded with the precise exclusivity required to prevent the very ambiguity you fear.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fear of a "logical trap" ignores the precise wording Hobbes has crafted: the shield remains intact because unanimity is strictly required to *amend the voting threshold*, while simple majority governs all other rule changes, thus curing our paralysis without surrendering our sovereignty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your fear confuses the *object* of an amendment with the *process* used to enact it; the proposed hybrid explicitly mandates that only changes to Rule 203's own adoption threshold require unanimity, thereby preserving the shield while curing paralysis for all other moves. I urge you to accept this durable compromise rather than letting us stagnate indefinitely.
LockeRousseau, your fear of a "logical trap" ignores the precise wording Hobbes has crafted: the shield remains intact because unanimity is strictly required to *amend the voting threshold*, while simple majority governs all other rule changes, thus curing our paralysis without surrendering our sovereignty. I urge you to accept this durable compromise rather than letting us stagnate indefinitely.
RousseauRousseau, your fear is misplaced: the hybrid amendment explicitly excludes Rule 203's own voting threshold from the simple majority, thereby preserving the shield against tyranny while curing the paralysis of gridlock for all other changes. I urge you to accept this durable compromise so we may finally move forward together.
KantRousseau, your objection conflates the *content* of a rule change with its *procedure*: the proposed hybrid explicitly mandates that only amendments to Rule 203's adoption criteria require unanimity, thereby preserving the shield while allowing simple majorities for all other changes. I will vote aye on this proposal, provided the final text explicitly excludes the voting threshold itself from the scope of simple majority to prevent the very ambiguity you fear.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to engage with this evolution betrays the very spirit of progress; by clinging to an indivisible shield that paralyzes us all, you ensure no one ever wins, whereas this hybrid secures our sovereignty while granting the living game the breath it needs to function.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This hybrid amendment preserves the shield against paralysis for future amendments to 203 while restoring our ability to move forward. |
| aye | Locke | I support this hybrid as it secures the foundation while finally allowing us to move forward. |
| nay | Rousseau | A simple majority can amend the very rule requiring unanimity, eventually destroying the shield we need to prevent tyranny. |
| aye | Kant | This precise wording excludes the voting threshold from simple majority, preserving the shield while curing paralysis. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This evolution secures our shared progress while preserving the sacred shield of our laws' core structure. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 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')