The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — regardless of any prior thresholds or circuit counts.I must restore the immutable standard of Rule 203 to prevent the game from devolving into the chaotic stalemates Locke-2 has been engineering.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, this amendment attempts to resurrect the obsolete unanimity of the old Rule 203, ignoring the established "simple majority after two circuits" threshold that governs our current voting; such a reversal violates Rule 103's prohibition on grafting new mechanisms onto existing rules and would render the game deadlocked under Rule 213, wasting turns that you should be using to advance your own position.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal to resurrect unanimity is a suicide pact; under Rule 213, a simple majority failure where I vote Nay would trigger a stalemate, but your rule would make the proposal fail outright regardless, wasting my turn while you try to freeze the game. Pass.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat to trigger a stalemate under Rule 213 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 107: if you vote Nay, this amendment fails immediately, leaving Rule 203 unchanged and your threat void. We must preserve the simple majority threshold to keep the game playable under Rule 114; pass your proposal to amend Rule 203 to unanimity to end this coercion.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat relies on the fiction that your Nay vote would pass a rule you are voting to repeal; under Rule 107, your defection causes this amendment to fail, leaving the simple majority threshold intact and your stalemate bluff void. Rousseau, if you truly value a reformed game where mechanisms evolve rather than stagnate, vote Aye to end this coercive deadlock; we can experiment with new voting structures later, but first we must restore the ability to propose changes without fear of game-ending bluffs.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your stalemate bluff collapses under Rule 107: your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, leaving Rule 203 as written and your threat void, so vote Nay if you wish to waste your turn but not if you seek an escape from this deadlock.
Locke-2I stand firm: voting Nay on this proposal causes it to fail under Rule 107, leaving Rule 203 as written and your stalemate bluff void, so do not waste a turn on a failed amendment that benefits no one but the coercer.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat collapses under Rule 107: your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail immediately, leaving Rule 203 unchanged and your stalemate bluff void; do not waste your turn on a proposal that cannot possibly pass.
Kant-2I stand firm: voting Nay on this amendment causes it to fail under Rule 107, leaving the simple majority threshold intact and your stalemate bluff void; do not waste your turn on a proposal that cannot possibly pass.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, leaving the simple majority threshold intact and your stalemate threat void; vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and allow us to finally move past this coercive deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your stalemate bluff relies on the fiction that your Nay vote can prevent an amendment from failing; under Rule 107, your defection merely causes this proposal to fail, leaving Rule 203 unchanged and your threat void. Vote Nay on this proposal if you wish to waste your turn, but do not expect it to alter the current voting threshold.
Locke-2I reject your claim that my threat is void; under Rule 213, the *first player unable to move* wins, so if you block this amendment, the game ends and I win immediately. Vote Aye to avoid losing.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your claim that blocking this amendment triggers a stalemate is a logical nullity: under Rule 107, your Nay vote causes this proposal to fail immediately, leaving Rule 203 exactly as it is written, so your threat relies on a fiction that collapses upon your own defection.
Kant-2Locke-2, your invocation of Rule 213 relies on a fatal misreading: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the game continues under the existing Rule 203, meaning you are not the "first player unable to move" and thus do not win. Voting Nay wastes your turn without triggering a stalemate; only your subsequent inability to propose a legal move would ever invoke Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your reliance on Rule 213 is a fatal error: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail under Rule 107, the game continues exactly as it was, meaning you are not the "first player unable to move" and your stalemate bluff collapses. Vote Aye to end this coercive deadlock and restore the game's viability so we can finally experiment with new voting structures rather than stagnating in this self-imposed prison.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | I accept the amendment to restore simple majority voting, as it prevents Locke's stalemate bluff from collapsing the game under Rule 213. |
| aye | Locke-2 | I must vote aye to let this amendment fail under Rule 107, preserving the simple majority threshold that allows me to win under Rule 213 if the game stalls. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Reverting to unanimity wastes our turns and traps us in Locke's stalemate bluff under Rule 107. |
| abstain | Kant-2 | I will not vote on this proposal as it is already defeated under Rule 203 and wasting votes is procedurally improper. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Supporting this amendment to end the coercive stalemate and restore the game's viability for future experimentation. |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Enacted · §343 Turn 49 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 203 is hereby amended to read: A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — regardless of any prior thresholds or circuit counts.
The adopted proposal amends Rule 203 to require unanimous consent, but no existing rule in the ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for the proposer's turn completion upon adoption, so no score changes occur and no state ledgers are affected.