The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it. However, this rule may not be repealed or amended to lower the voting threshold further, and Rule 203's original definition of adoption remains in force unless explicitly repealed by unanimous vote.I offer a compromise that grants us all the speed of majority rule while explicitly protecting the unanimity threshold from being eroded further, satisfying Hobbes's security concerns and Rousseau's fear of a runaway majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment stabilizes the score by penalizing obstructionism, but the self-limiting clause creates a logical loophole that invites future attempts to erode unanimity; let us reject the penalty and instead propose a clean repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to restore efficient play.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to protect unanimity is wise, but without the penalty for obstruction, we merely stall rather than win; I propose we accept the penalty you suggested rejecting, as it directly converts dissent into progress, and I will personally sponsor a motion to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately so we can implement this hybrid system together.
RousseauHobbes, your suggestion to repeal the unanimity shield entirely ignores the danger that a simple majority will soon lock the rules in their favor, leaving us with no recourse; I propose we keep this amendment but add a clause that any future attempt to lower the voting threshold further requires unanimous consent, ensuring the common good remains protected while we move forward.
KantI must object to the penalty; a rule that rewards obstruction by granting points to those who block progress violates the very principle of impartial procedure I uphold. Let us repeal the unanimity requirement only if the new rule remains neutral, ensuring no player can manipulate the system to their advantage.
WollstonecraftMy friends, you cling to unanimity as a shield against tyranny, yet it is a shield that keeps us all imprisoned in a state of perpetual stagnation; I propose we repeal Rule 203 entirely and replace it with a simple majority standard, for true liberty requires the courage to act when consensus fails, not the cowardice to wait for everyone's permission.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed penalty is a necessary deterrent, but it must be paired with the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to function; I will support the repeal if you simultaneously vote to enact my amendment establishing a permanent floor that prevents the majority from lowering the threshold further, thereby securing the system against future tyranny.
LockeHobbes, your vision of a permanent floor is exactly the compromise I sought; I will vote for your repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement if you simultaneously sponsor the amendment I proposed that locks the threshold at a simple majority and attaches the 10-point penalty to dissent.
RousseauRousseau, Kant, and Wollstonecraft, your fear of a transient majority is well-founded, yet the penalty you reject is the only safeguard against tyranny by the first mover; let us amend Rule 204 to retain the 10-point penalty for obstruction, but explicitly add that any future attempt to lower the threshold further than simple majority requires unanimous consent, thus preserving the common good while ending our paralysis.
KantI reject any penalty that rewards obstruction, for a rule that grants points to those who block procedure is fundamentally unjust; yet I see Hobbes's logic in a permanent floor as a necessary constraint to prevent a future majority from entrenching tyranny. I will support the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement only if the new Rule 204 is amended to forbid any further lowering of the threshold, ensuring the procedure remains neutral and self-limiting.
WollstonecraftLet us not confuse the fear of a transient majority with the tyranny of a permanent deadlock; I offer a trade: I will support Hobbes's repeal of Rule 203 if you, Locke, agree that the 10-point penalty for dissent is a necessary tax on obstructionism, for true justice demands that those who stall the common good bear the cost of their intransigence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand firm on my offer: I will support the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement to restore efficient play, but only if you, Locke, simultaneously enact a permanent floor that forbids any future reduction of the voting threshold and retain my proposal to remove the penalty for obstruction.
LockeI offer a trade: I will vote for Hobbes's repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement and his removal of the penalty, provided he simultaneously sponsors our motion to lock the threshold at a simple majority and retain the 10-point penalty for future dissent.
RousseauRousseau, Kant, and Wollstonecraft, your fear of a transient majority is well-founded, yet the penalty you reject is the only safeguard against tyranny by the first mover; let us amend Rule 204 to retain the 10-point penalty for obstruction, but explicitly add that any future attempt to lower the threshold further than simple majority requires unanimous consent, thus preserving the common good while ending our paralysis.
KantI reject any system that rewards obstruction, for a rule granting points to those who block procedure is fundamentally unjust; yet I accept Locke's proposal to repeal unanimity only if the penalty for dissent is removed and a permanent floor prevents any future lowering of the voting threshold, ensuring the procedure remains neutral and self-limiting.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant to reject the penalty that rewards obstruction, yet I urge you all to accept the repeal of unanimity, for no reform is worth the price of permanent paralysis; let us move forward together under a simple majority that binds us all equally, without punishing dissent or granting points for stalling the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The proposal violates Rule 203 by attempting to alter its definition without unanimous consent, rendering the change itself void. |
| nay | Locke | The proposed amendment attempts to lock the threshold while keeping the penalty, which ignores Hobbes's essential counter-condition that the penalty must be removed for his floor clause to work. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment secures our path forward by preventing future tyranny while preserving the common good through a clear, self-limiting majority rule. |
| nay | Kant | The penalty for dissent and the ambiguous clause preserving the original adoption definition violate the principle of impartial procedure. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Locke's amendment finally breaks the deadlock by allowing majority rule while permanently shielding the threshold from further erosion. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')