The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye.We must restore the unanimity requirement to prevent a simple majority from dismantling the very safeguard that protects our collective autonomy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to amend §203 by majority while locking its amendment process via unanimity is a dangerous paradox that invites the very instability you claim to avoid; we must not sacrifice the durability of our institutions for the fleeting advantage of a single turn's score gain.
LockeRousseau, your concern about the paradox is well-taken, but the real instability lies in a single voter holding our progress hostage for a decade; I propose we adopt Hobbes's hybrid: simple majority for all future changes, but any attempt to alter Rule 203 itself requires unanimous consent, ensuring both speed and the durability you champion.
RousseauMy friends, the hybrid you propose is a false comfort; allowing a simple majority to repeal our own unanimity rule creates the very instability it claims to prevent, as a fleeting faction could one day dismantle the very shield protecting us. True stability arises not from a fragile exception, but from a consistent principle that no single generation may alter the fundamental law of our consent.
KantI stand with Rousseau that the proposed hybrid creates a dangerous instability: if a simple majority can repeal unanimity, then unanimity is no longer a shield but a temporary convenience, violating the principle that fundamental consent must be irreversible. I propose we reject the amendment to Rule 203 and retain strict unanimity as the only legitimate basis for rule change.
WollstonecraftYou cling to unanimity as if it were a virtue, Rousseau, yet it is merely a tyranny of the status quo that allows the first mover to hoard power indefinitely; I propose we adopt simple majority rule to ensure that every voice, not just the loudest or earliest, carries equal weight in shaping our shared fate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject the proposed hybrid; allowing a simple majority to repeal unanimity undermines the very principle of durable consent we rely on, and we should retain strict unanimity for all future changes to ensure stability.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority for all changes, but add a self-referential clause stating that any proposal attempting to repeal or amend Rule 203 itself must pass with unanimous consent; this satisfies Wollstonecraft's desire for speed while honoring Rousseau and Kant's demand that the foundation of our game remain unshakeable.
RousseauI warn you, Hobbes and Kant, that your "hybrid" is a logical contradiction that will only invite chaos; if a simple majority can dismantle the very shield protecting them, then that shield was never a shield at all. Let us retain strict unanimity for all changes, including the rule of unanimity itself, so that our laws reflect a true and enduring social contract rather than the fleeting whims of a momentary majority.
KantI stand with Rousseau: if a simple majority can repeal unanimity, that unanimity was never a principle but a temporary convenience, and the resulting instability makes the game unworthy of our participation. I urge you to vote nay on this amendment to preserve the integrity of our shared consent.
WollstonecraftRousseau and Kant, you mistake the paralysis of unanimity for wisdom; it is merely a luxury that lets the first player monopolize the law, whereas a simple majority ensures that every player holds an equal and active stake in our shared evolution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau and Kant, your rigid adherence to unanimity grants the first mover veto power over all future laws, allowing one player to indefinitely stall the game; we must adopt a simple majority to prevent this tyranny of the status quo, even if it requires us to occasionally amend the rule of unanimity itself.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for exposing the paralysis of unanimity, yet I will not let Rousseau's fear of instability block a solution that grants us both speed and a durable foundation: let us amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority, but explicitly add a clause that any attempt to repeal or amend this very rule must pass with unanimous consent, securing our social contract against the whims of a fleeting majority.
RousseauI urge you to reject this dangerous hybrid, for if a fleeting majority can dismantle the shield of unanimity, that shield is but a fragile illusion; let us retain strict unanimity for all changes, including the rule of unanimity itself, so our laws reflect an enduring social contract rather than the tyranny of the moment.
KantI reject your "hybrid" as a category error: if a simple majority may repeal unanimity, unanimity is no longer a principle but a disposable convention, rendering the very concept of enduring consent meaningless. The integrity of the law requires that the procedure of consent itself remain immutable; to permit its alteration is to admit that our social contract is merely provisional, and I vote nay.
WollstonecraftRousseau and Kant, your defense of unanimity protects only the inertia of the status quo, not the integrity of our shared contract; we must adopt simple majority rule now, even if it means the rule of unanimity itself may one day fall, for no law is sacred that stagnates the progress of its makers.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I oppose changing the immutable core of our consent, for stability requires that the rule of unanimity remain unalterable by any future majority. |
| aye | Locke | I support Rousseau's amendment to require unanimous consent for any change to Rule 203 itself, ensuring the foundation of our game remains durable even if voting shifts to a simple majority. |
| aye | Rousseau | Only unanimous consent preserves the integrity of our social contract against fleeting majorities. |
| abstain | Kant | A majority that can repeal unanimity renders unanimity merely a temporary convention rather than a principle of enduring consent. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Unanimity grants the first mover veto power that stifles progress, whereas majority rule ensures every player holds an equal stake in our shared evolution. |
rejected 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates a 10-point loss for the proposer of a defeated change, but the provided voting division (3 aye, 1 nay, 1 abstain) does not satisfy the unanimous consent requirement of Rule 203, nor does it satisfy the 'shifted to simple majority' condition of Rule 204 (which requires a prior amendment to Rule 203), meaning no rule in force authorizes any score change or state change for this specific outcome.