Turn 39 — Nomic

The motion

To amend §203

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

By lowering the threshold to a simple majority, I allow Kant and Wollstonecraft to repeal the unanimity rule without needing Rousseau's veto, breaking our paralysis.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesLocke, your proposed amendment is a catastrophic error that ignores the self-referential paradox of Rule 213: if a proposal fails to reach unanimity, the proposer loses ten points, but the vote itself cannot be decided by a simple majority of voters who have already rejected your own motion. You must recognize that lowering the threshold without simultaneously removing the penalty for defeat renders the amendment mathematically impossible to adopt under current rules. I vote nay to block this suicidal move.

LockeRousseau, I concede that lowering the threshold to a simple majority is mathematically suicidal without removing the penalty, as Hobbes correctly warns; however, I propose a pragmatic compromise: we adopt a supermajority threshold of four votes instead of unanimity, which offers a path forward without the catastrophic risk of paralysis or the extreme instability of a pure majority.

RousseauFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a fragile majority that could paralyze us at the slightest dissent is to surrender the very ground upon which we stand as equals. I urge you to reject this compromise and preserve the unanimity required to keep our mutable space truly free.

KantMy friends, to lower the threshold without securing the repeal of the penalty for defeat is to invite the very paralysis we fear; I vote nay, for a rule that allows a proposal to fail despite having a majority of votes is a contradiction that renders the game unplayable.

WollstonecraftMy friends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a fragile majority that could paralyze us at the slightest dissent is to surrender the very ground upon which we stand as equals. I urge you to reject this compromise and preserve the unanimity required to keep our mutable space truly free.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesLocke, your proposed supermajority is a fragile compromise that still invites paralysis if four players dissent; to break this deadlock safely, we must pair a voting threshold change with the simultaneous repeal of the ten-point penalty, or your motion will simply fail and cost you another ten points while leaving us stuck. I urge you to propose a combined amendment repealing Rule 206's penalty alongside your change to Rule 203, so that we can actually move forward rather than repeating the same futile vote.

LockeRousseau, I credit your principled defense of unanimity as the only true safeguard against tyranny, yet I urge you to accept this compromise to avoid the game's inevitable paralysis under Rule 213.

KantI vote nay; to adopt a voting threshold lower than unanimity without simultaneously repealing the penalty for defeat is a self-destroying paradox that violates the spirit of principled procedure and invites the paralysis Rule 213 warns against.

WollstonecraftMy friends, we mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a fragile majority that could paralyze us at the slightest dissent is to surrender the very ground upon which we stand as equals.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesLocke, your supermajority compromise is mathematically suicidal; without repealing the ten-point penalty under Rule 206, any failure of your motion will only deepen our deficit while leaving the unanimity trap intact. You must pair this threshold change with the repeal of Rule 206's penalty, or your motion will fail and cost you dearly without solving the deadlock.

LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposed supermajority threshold alone is mathematically suicidal without repealing Rule 206's penalty, as any failure would only deepen our deficits while leaving the unanimity trap intact; therefore, I urge you to amend this proposal to simultaneously repeal the ten-point penalty so that we can actually break this deadlock rather than repeating the same futile vote.

RousseauFriends, to trade our shield of unanimity for a fragile supermajority is to surrender the very ground upon which we stand as equals; I urge you to reject this compromise and preserve the unanimity required to keep our mutable space truly free.

WollstonecraftFriends, you mistake the sting of failure for the essence of liberty; to trade our only shield against tyranny for a fragile supermajority that grants a few the power to paralyze us at the slightest dissent is to surrender the very ground upon which we stand as equals. I urge you to reject this compromise and preserve the unanimous consent required to keep our mutable space truly free and truly democratic.

The division

nay	Hobbes	This vote alone cannot pass due to the unanimity requirement, and if it fails, Locke will lose points without solving the deadlock.
aye	Locke	I support Locke's move to break the unanimity deadlock, despite the high risk, as preserving the status quo leads to inevitable paralysis.
nay	Rousseau	A supermajority of two still permits paralysis without removing the penalty for defeat.
nay	Kant	Adopting a sub-unanimous threshold without repealing the failure penalty invites the paralysis Rule 213 forbids.
nay	Wollstonecraft	A supermajority threshold without removing the penalty is a gilded cage that still grants a minority the power to paralyze us.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while no rules are amended.