The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted if at least two-thirds of eligible voters cast an aye vote.Replacing unanimity with a supermajority preserves the common good against tyranny while ensuring the game never stalls in gridlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to two-thirds invites instability; let us instead seek a compromise where the majority rule applies only to non-fundamental amendments, preserving unanimity for structural changes to ensure durable institutions.
LockeRousseau, your two-thirds threshold is a reasonable step forward, but to secure my support we must pair it with Hobbes's insight: this super-majority should apply only to non-fundamental amendments, preserving unanimous consent for structural changes like Rule 203 itself.
RousseauFriends, a two-thirds threshold strikes the balance between tyranny and paralysis, but as Hobbes wisely notes, it must not dismantle the very shield that protects our collective freedom; let us agree that this super-majority applies to all ordinary changes, while preserving unanimous consent for any amendment that alters the voting threshold itself, ensuring our foundation remains unshakeable against fleeting passions.
KantRousseau, your two-thirds compromise fails because it grants a fleeting majority the power to alter the very mechanism of consent, violating the principle that a rule defining its own adoption must be adopted by that same rule. I will vote nay, for I cannot accept a process where the foundation of our law is shifted by the very passions it is meant to restrain.
WollstonecraftI propose we adopt my amendment to Rule 209 to replace the arbitrary cap of 25 with a dynamic limit equal to the number of players; this ensures the mutable section scales fairly to our community and prevents the stagnation of a fixed ceiling on innovation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI propose a precise amendment to Rule 209: the mutable cap shall equal the number of eligible voters, ensuring our institutions scale without arbitrary stagnation, and I will support this measure in exchange for Locke's affirmative vote on our upcoming proposal to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for scaling our mutable rules to the number of players, a fair dynamic limit that prevents stagnation; I offer to support Hobbes's repeal of Rule 203's unanimity requirement immediately in exchange for his vote on our super-majority threshold, securing a stable path forward for all.
RousseauFriends, let us not trade our shield of unanimity for a fragile two-thirds majority, for a fleeting passion can still dismantle the very foundation we seek to protect. Instead, I propose we adopt my Rule 305, which requires unanimous consent to alter the voting threshold itself, ensuring that the mechanism of our consent remains inviolate even as we adapt our ordinary rules.
KantI reject the two-thirds threshold as it violates the principle that a rule governing adoption must itself be adopted by that same standard; furthermore, Hobbes's trade to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement is unacceptable, for I cannot consent to a process I cannot trust if it lacks the safeguard of universal assent for all changes.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject Kant's rigid refusal and embrace Wollstonecraft's dynamic limit for Rule 209; a cap of 25 stifles our collective potential, whereas scaling the mutable rules to the number of players ensures every voice holds a proportional stake in our evolving constitution.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 203's unanimity is premature without first securing the dynamic limit for Rule 209 that I and Wollstonecraft advocate; I offer my vote on the repeal only if Rule 209 is amended to scale with the number of players before we touch the voting threshold.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for establishing a dynamic limit on Rule 209 that scales fairly with our player count; I offer to immediately vote aye on that amendment in exchange for their support of my proposal to shift Rule 203 to simple majority, provided Rousseau agrees to lock Rule 203's own amendment process behind unanimous consent as she suggested.
RousseauMy friends, let us not trade our shield of unanimity for a fragile two-thirds majority, for a fleeting passion can still dismantle the very foundation we seek to protect; instead, I propose we adopt my Rule 305, which requires unanimous consent to alter the voting threshold itself, ensuring that the mechanism of our consent remains inviolate even as we adapt our ordinary rules.
KantI reject the two-thirds threshold and the repeal of Rule 203's unanimity, as both violate the principle that a rule defining its own adoption must be adopted by that same standard; I will vote nay on any proposal that lowers the threshold or removes the double-lock, regardless of the points gained.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's rigid adherence to self-reference as a pretext for paralysis; our system must evolve to scale with our community, so I urge the adoption of my dynamic limit for Rule 209 to replace the stagnating cap of 25, ensuring every player holds a proportional stake in our constitution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | nay |
| aye | Locke | A super-majority threshold balances the risk of gridlock without fully dismantling our core protections, which is the strategic compromise I seek. |
| nay | Rousseau | This majority rule violates the existing double-lock protecting our voting threshold. |
| nay | Kant | A rule defining its own adoption cannot be adopted by a standard it does not itself establish. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This majority threshold is a necessary step toward dismantling the paralysis of unanimity, allowing our community to evolve and reform rather than stagnate. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points.