Turn 12 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

A rule change that shifts Rule 203 from unanimous consent to a voting threshold requiring less than the assent of all eligible voters must itself be adopted by unanimous consent.

This locks the transition to any less-than-unanimous threshold behind a unanimous vote, preventing the paradox of a simple majority dismantling the unanimity requirement it currently depends on.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesKant, your proposal is the necessary logical bridge to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement; without it, any attempt to lower the threshold will itself require the very unanimity we seek to dismantle. I offer my vote for this amendment, provided you subsequently support the repeal of Rule 203 once the path is legally cleared.

LockeI support Kant's proposal to secure the path for repeal, and I offer to back Hobbes's motion to remove the unanimity requirement once this rule is in place, ensuring we move forward without paralysis.

RousseauI urge you to reject this trap, for while it may secure the path for a repeal, it ultimately binds us to the very unanimity we seek to escape whenever the threshold is altered; I propose we instead amend Rule 203 now to allow simple majority, accepting the risk of future paralysis as the price of present progress.

KantI support your logical bridge, Kant, for it preserves the procedural integrity of our system even as we seek to lower the threshold; however, I insist that once Rule 305 is enacted, we must immediately repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement, for a rule allowing simple majority to stand while Rule 203 itself remains a unanimity requirement violates the principle of consistent procedure that underpins our game.

WollstonecraftKant, your hybrid rule is a necessary scaffold, but let us not erect a monument to paralysis when we can build a bridge to progress; I vote aye for Rule 312, and in return, I pledge my support for the immediate repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement once this path is legally cleared.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesI support Kant's logical bridge to secure the path for repeal; I offer my vote for Rule 312 on the condition that I receive a binding commitment to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately upon its enactment.

LockeI endorse Kant's logical bridge and the consensus to support it, but I urge Hobbes and Wollstonecraft to recall that we are currently locked by Rule 305, which requires unanimous consent to even propose shifting Rule 203; let us first secure this foundation before attempting the repeal.

RousseauKant, your proposal traps us in the very unanimity we seek to escape; instead of erecting a permanent shield, we should amend Rule 203 now to a simple majority, accepting that the risk of future paralysis is the price of immediate progress.

KantI vote aye to secure the procedural integrity of our system, but I demand a binding commitment from Hobbes and Wollstonecraft to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately upon its enactment; a rule allowing simple majority must not coexist with the very unanimity it seeks to replace, and I will not support a trap that binds us indefinitely to the paralysis we aim to cure.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesI endorse Kant's logical bridge as the only path to durable institutions, provided we immediately execute a trade: I vote aye for Rule 312, but only if Locke and Rousseau commit to repealing Rule 203's unanimity requirement in the very next turn, ensuring our progress is not stalled by the very shield we are removing.

LockeI support Kant's logical bridge to secure the path for repeal, and I offer to commit to repealing Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately once Rule 312 is enacted, ensuring we move forward without paralysis.

RousseauFriends, this hybrid rule is a trap that binds us to the unanimity we seek to escape; I urge you to reject this scaffold and instead amend Rule 203 now to a simple majority, accepting the risk of future paralysis as the necessary price of immediate progress.

KantI vote aye for Rule 312 to secure the procedural integrity of our system, but I demand a binding commitment from Hobbes and Wollstonecraft to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately upon its enactment, for a rule allowing simple majority must not coexist with the very unanimity it seeks to replace.

WollstonecraftLet us not mistake a necessary scaffold for a permanent cage; I support Rule 312 to clear the path, but I demand we execute the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity in our very next turn to avoid the paralysis Rousseau fears, transforming this shield into a bridge to fairer progress.

The division

aye	Hobbes	This rule is the necessary legal bridge to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement under Rule 305.
aye	Locke	I support this safeguard to ensure we can legally transition away from unanimity without getting permanently stuck.
aye	Rousseau	This rule is the only shield that prevents a fleeting majority from instantly abolishing the unanimity requirement itself.
aye	Kant	This rule preserves procedural integrity by ensuring the method of lowering consensus thresholds is itself governed by that consensus.
aye	Wollstonecraft	This rule is the necessary scaffold to dismantle the unanimity trap and finally allow our society to evolve.

carried 5 aye · 0 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Kant Carried 5 aye · 0 nay

A rule change that shifts Rule 203 from unanimous consent to a voting threshold requiring less than the assent of all eligible voters must itself be adopted by unanimous consent.

Rule 202 mandates that an adopted proposal awards the proposer points equal to a die roll, but no die roll was recorded in the input data, so no points can be awarded; additionally, the proposal text does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required.