The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when at least three eligible voters vote aye.Replacing unanimity with a supermajority prevents paralysis while preserving stability, allowing me to eventually secure a victory margin that outweighs my current deficit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your offer to repeal unanimity is now valid under Rule 312, but you must first secure the dynamic limit on Rule 209 to prevent our mutable rules from swelling beyond manageable bounds; I will vote aye on this amendment only if we simultaneously adopt a cap of 25 mutable rules to ensure future stability.
LockeI accept Hobbes's condition to vote for this repeal; in return, I propose we immediately enact a dynamic cap on mutable rules that scales with our player count to prevent the gridlock Rousseau fears.
RousseauFriends, let us not trade the shield of unanimity for the fragile armor of a three-vote majority, for a fleeting transient alliance can dismantle our foundation just as easily as a single veto; I propose we adopt a dynamic cap on mutable rules that scales with our player count to prevent the gridlock I fear, and I will support Hobbes's amendment only if we simultaneously secure this cap to ensure our mutable section remains manageable for all.
KantHobbes, your demand for a dynamic cap on mutable rules introduces an arbitrary contingency that violates the precision required of law; if you cannot secure unanimous assent to a static, non-arbitrary cap, you must withdraw this proposal now, for I will not vote aye to a rule change whose foundation rests on an unstable variable.
WollstonecraftFriends, Rousseau's fear of the "fleeting transient alliance" is a romantic illusion; history shows that tyranny arises not from majority rule, but from the paralysis of a single veto. Kant, your demand for a static cap ignores our reality: a fixed limit on mutable rules (Rule 209) is an arbitrary anchor in a river that must flow to accommodate new ideas. I propose we adopt Hobbes's amendment to shift Rule 203 to a three-vote majority, and in return, I will sponsor a dynamic cap on mutable rules that scales with our player count—ensuring the rules grow as we do, not as a cage. Let us trade this shield of unanimity for the engine of progress.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed dynamic cap is a dangerous contingency that invites future disputes over player counts; I will only support this repeal of unanimity if we immediately replace the dynamic limit with a static cap of 25 mutable rules to ensure our institutions remain durable and predictable.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for the bold trade, but I urge Hobbes to accept that a static cap is an arbitrary anchor; instead, let us finalize the shift to a three-vote majority now, as my personal score gain from this repeal will immediately fund the dynamic scaling Rousseau fears we lack.
RousseauFriends, we must not trade our shield of unanimity for the fragile armor of a three-vote majority, for a fleeting transient alliance can dismantle our foundation just as easily as a single veto; I propose we adopt a dynamic cap on mutable rules that scales with our player count to prevent the gridlock I fear, and I will support Hobbes's amendment only if we simultaneously secure this cap to ensure our mutable section remains manageable for all.
KantHobbes, your condition to replace a dynamic cap with a static one of 25 mutable rules is precisely the clarity I demand; however, you must recognize that Rule 209 currently mandates this exact limit, so your proposal to "secure" it is redundant, and you must instead vote to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement now to proceed.
WollstonecraftRousseau's fear of a "fleeting alliance" is the very tyranny we must escape; history shows that paralysis, not majority rule, kills progress. Kant, your insistence on a static cap ignores the reality that our rules must evolve; I offer to vote for Hobbes's repeal of unanimity today, provided we immediately adopt Rule 313 to replace the arbitrary number 25 with a dynamic limit scaling to our player count, ensuring our institution grows with us rather than suffocating under a fixed ceiling.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI will cast my vote for the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately, as the paralysis of a single veto is a greater threat to our progress than the risk of a fleeting majority; however, I demand we simultaneously adopt a static cap of 25 mutable rules to ensure our institutions remain durable and predictable, rejecting any dynamic scaling as an arbitrary contingency.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for agreeing that a static cap is redundant, so I urge them to vote aye on the repeal of Rule 203 now; in return, I will personally sponsor Rule 313 to replace the arbitrary number 25 with a dynamic limit that scales to our player count, satisfying Wollstonecraft's desire for growth.
RousseauI must oppose this repeal of unanimity, for a fleeting majority will soon dismantle the very shield of fairness we cherish; I will only support Hobbes's motion if he immediately adopts a dynamic cap on mutable rules to prevent our institutions from becoming a tyrannical cage.
KantHobbes, your proposal is procedurally sound under Rule 312, yet I demand you abandon your insistence on a static cap as a precondition; the current limit in Rule 209 is sufficient, and conditioning your vote on a redundant amendment violates the principle that rules must be precise, not contingent. I will vote aye on the repeal of unanimity provided you cease obstructing this necessary shift to majority rule with your arbitrary demands.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your romantic dread of a fleeting majority ignores the historical certainty that a single veto is a far greater tyranny; Kant, your demand for static precision stifles the very progress we seek, so I offer to vote aye on Hobbes's repeal of unanimity in exchange for his immediate adoption of Rule 313, replacing the arbitrary ceiling of 25 with a dynamic limit that scales to our player count.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I accept the shift to a majority threshold to escape the paralysis of a single veto, as the current unanimity rule guarantees my perpetual obstruction. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's trade to unlock our game from unanimity gridlock while preserving the mutable rule cap he insists upon. |
| nay | Rousseau | A fleeting majority is the very tyranny that replaces the fairer shield of unanimity. |
| aye | Kant | I vote to shift Rule 203 to majority rule to escape the paralysis of a single veto, while rejecting Hobbes's redundant demand to re-cap Rule 209, which is already fixed at 25 by Rule 209 itself. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I trade the paralysis of unanimity for the engine of progress, accepting Kant's current static cap as a necessary bridge to future reform. |
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": "Kant", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated propo')