Turn 30 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §203

A rule change is adopted only when at least two eligible voters vote aye.

I credit Hobbes for identifying that unanimity paralyzes our progress, and I offer this simple majority as the necessary compromise to unlock the game.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to a mere two votes is a catastrophic error that abandons the very durable institutions we must preserve; such a rule would invite a tyranny of the majority and render our mutable space ungovernable, so I urge you to withdraw this ill-conceived amendment.

LockeI credit Hobbes for the caution that underpins our stability, yet we must recognize that a single veto from Rousseau has already rendered us paralyzed; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require *at least three* eligible voters, a compromise that secures our progress while preserving a meaningful check against tyranny.

RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against the tyranny of the majority for a fragile two-thirds majority is to surrender the very principle that keeps us free, so I urge you to reject this proposal and preserve the unanimity that protects our common good.

KantRousseau, your attachment to unanimity is a form of political suicide that grants the single dissenting voice absolute veto power, paralyzing us before we can even attempt to escape the deadlock; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require at least three eligible votes, a threshold high enough to prevent tyranny by a transient majority yet low enough to break the current stalemate.

WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority of eligible voters, not just two or three; this balances the need to break Rousseau's veto paralysis with a democratic safeguard that prevents any single faction from hijacking our mutable space, ensuring that our institutions evolve through reasoned consensus rather than the tyranny of the minority or the stagnation of the single voice.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesRousseau, your steadfast defense of unanimity is a strategic error that grants you the power to permanently paralyze the game and deny victory to those who play fairly; I urge you to accept a simple majority threshold now, breaking the deadlock so we may score and resolve this stalemate through the very mechanisms we have built.

LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for recognizing that the unanimity requirement is the sole cause of our paralysis, yet I urge Rousseau to accept a simple majority threshold as the only viable compromise that breaks this deadlock while preserving our democratic safeguards.

RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against the tyranny of the majority for a fragile threshold that allows a transient faction to hijack our mutable space is to surrender the very principle that keeps us free, so I urge you to reject this proposal and preserve the unanimity that protects our common good.

KantRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a form of political suicide that grants the single dissenting voice absolute veto power, paralyzing us before we can even attempt to escape the deadlock; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require at least three eligible votes, a threshold high enough to prevent tyranny by a transient majority yet low enough to break the current stalemate.

WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a noble sentiment but a tactical error that grants a single voice the power to freeze our entire polity; let us adopt a simple majority threshold now, so that the game may evolve through the reasoned consensus of the many rather than stagnate under the tyranny of the one.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesLocke, your conditional promise to repeal unanimity is a dangerous fiction; you cannot bind a player to vote aye on a rule that requires the very unanimity you seek to dismantle. The only viable path to breaking this deadlock is a simple majority threshold enacted immediately, without relying on your personal commitment to a rule you have no power to force upon Rousseau.

LockeI credit Rousseau's principled defense of unanimity as the only true shield against tyranny, yet I propose we amend Rule 203 to require *at least three* eligible votes instead of the current unanimity, creating a durable compromise that breaks our paralysis while preserving a meaningful check against transient majorities.

KantRousseau, your defense of unanimity is a form of political suicide that grants a single dissenting voice the power to paralyze us indefinitely; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require at least three eligible votes, a threshold sufficient to break this deadlock while preventing any transient minority from hijacking our mutable space.

WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to vote aye on a simple majority threshold traps us in a permanent paralysis that violates the spirit of a game designed to evolve; I urge you to embrace a democratic compromise that allows our mutable institutions to grow rather than stagnating under the tyranny of a single veto.

The division

nay	Hobbes	Lowering the threshold to two votes grants Rousseau a functional veto that will permanently paralyze the game.
nay	Locke	A two-vote threshold is insufficient to break our paralysis given the current deadlock.
nay	Rousseau	I reject a threshold of two as too low, for it allows a transient majority to dismantle our only shield against tyranny.
nay	Kant	A threshold of two is too low to prevent a transient majority from hijacking our mutable space.
nay	Wollstonecraft	A threshold of two ignores Rousseau's veto and grants Hobbes and Kant disproportionate power to enact tyranny without the consent of the many.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.