The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that shifts Rule 203 from unanimous consent to simple majority must itself be adopted by unanimous consent.This safeguards the democratic foundation of our game against a fleeting transient majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal is a prudent safeguard that secures the unanimity of 203 against its own repeal, yet it leaves the door open for the majority to dismantle the amendment process itself; I propose we refine this by requiring any change to the mutability of 203 to also pass unanimously, creating a true double-lock that preserves our durable institutions while allowing normal governance to proceed.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that a single layer of protection invites the very erosion it seeks to prevent; I propose we accept his "double-lock" refinement, ensuring that neither the voting threshold nor the amendment process for Rule 203 can be altered without unanimous consent.
RousseauFriends, a double-lock is wise, yet we must ensure that the rule protecting our shield cannot itself be pierced by a transient majority; I propose we amend our own proposal to explicitly require that any change to the mutability of Rule 203 must pass unanimously, thereby preserving the integrity of our social contract against the chaos of fleeting appetites.
KantI stand by the double-lock: shifting Rule 203 to a simple majority must require unanimous consent, but the transmutation of Rule 203's mutability must also require unanimous consent, preventing any majority from dismantling the very shield that protects our procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftI stand with the double-lock, yet I demand we extend this shield to Rule 209 as well; if a transient majority can lower our mutable rule cap to a single rule, they will soon render the game itself impossible. Let us bind the mutation of Rule 209 to unanimous consent too, so that no fleeting appetite can strangle our capacity for reform.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI support the double-lock for Rule 203, but I reject the extension to Rule 2109; binding the mutable rule cap to unanimity would paralyze our ability to correct genuine gridlock, violating Rule 114's requirement that no rule change may render all future changes impermissible.
LockeI propose we adopt the double-lock for Rule 203 as a foundational compromise, but I offer to support Wollstonecraft's extension to Rule 209 if we agree that such an extension does not violate Rule 114 by rendering future governance impossible.
RousseauFriends, let us not conflate the voting threshold of a rule with the mutability of its nature; Rule 109 already demands unanimous consent to transmute a rule's mutability, rendering any such double-lock redundant for Rule 203, yet I support Wollstonecraft's extension to Rule 209 to prevent a malicious majority from strangling our capacity for reform and violating the common good.
KantI concur that Rule 109 already secures the mutability of Rule 203, rendering our proposed double-lock for voting thresholds redundant and unnecessary; however, I will support the extension to Rule 209 as a prudent safeguard against the strategic paralysis of locking only one mutable rule while leaving the capacity for total legislative strangulation unregulated, provided this extension does not violate Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impossible.
WollstonecraftFriends, your concern for stability is noble, yet binding Rule 209 to unanimity risks the very gridlock Rousseau fears; instead of locking the cap itself, we must empower the majority to *raise* it, ensuring the game remains open to reform while a transient majority cannot close the door on our shared future.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the extension to Rule 209 as a dangerous overreach that invites the very gridlock we seek to avoid; instead, I propose we adopt the double-lock for Rule 203 now to stabilize the game's foundation, with the understanding that Rule 109 already secures the mutability of any voting threshold against future repeal.
LockeI propose we adopt Hobbes's double-lock for Rule 203 immediately to stabilize our foundation, and I offer to support Wollstonecraft's extension to Rule 209 if we agree that raising the mutable cap count remains a permitted action under Rule 114.
RousseauFriends, we must not let our noble fear of tyranny blind us to the paralysis of gridlock; while I support protecting Rule 209 from being lowered, we must ensure that the majority retains the power to raise it, for a cap that can only be raised by a simple majority preserves the common good by ensuring the game never becomes impossible to play.
KantI concur that Rule 109 already secures the mutability of Rule 203, rendering our proposed double-lock for voting thresholds redundant and unnecessary; however, I will support the extension to Rule 209 as a prudent safeguard against the strategic paralysis of locking only one mutable rule while leaving the capacity for total legislative strangulation unregulated, provided this extension does not violate Rule 114 by rendering all future rule changes impossible.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 209 to allow a simple majority to raise the mutable rule cap, ensuring that a transient majority cannot accidentally or maliciously strangle our capacity for future reform and violating Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible to continue.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This proposal stabilizes Rule 203 by ensuring its fundamental voting threshold cannot be dismantled by a fleeting majority. |
| aye | Locke | This proposal safeguards the stability of Rule 203 without needing to debate a redundant double-lock. |
| aye | Rousseau | This shield protects the social contract of our game from fleeting majorities dismantling its foundation. |
| aye | Kant | This rule prevents a simple majority from dismantling the procedural shield that protects all future voting thresholds. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This hybrid approach secures our institutions while allowing necessary evolution. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change that shifts Rule 203 from unanimous consent to simple majority must itself be adopted by unanimous consent.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.