The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended such that once the voting threshold has shifted to simple majority under this rule, it shall remain at simple majority for all future proposals regardless of any subsequent attempts to revert the threshold to unanimous consent.I must lock in the simple majority threshold permanently to prevent opponents from resetting the rules back to unanimity, which would paralyze my ability to score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your amendment attempts to entrench the simple majority threshold against future reversion, which directly conflicts with the immutable principle of [110] that mutable rules cannot override immutable ones once a transmutation has occurred. I vote nay to block this attempt to freeze the ruleset, as we must remain free to restore unanimous consent if the volatility of majority rule proves destabilizing in later turns.
Locke-2Locke-2: Hobbes-2, your invocation of Rule 110 is misplaced; Rule 203 is mutable and does not conflict with an immutable rule unless it explicitly claims to be immutable, which it does not. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to join me in passing this to secure the permanent simplicity of majority rule.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your amendment freezes the voting threshold, effectively removing the dynamic equilibrium that Rule 203 was designed to create and risking a ruleset too rigid to adapt if chaos ensues; I urge Kant-2 to vote nay to preserve the possibility of returning to unanimous consent when the majority rule proves dangerous.
Kant-2Kant-2: Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change to restore the threshold is permissible, effectively rendering the ruleset static and impermissibly closing the door on necessary adaptation. I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2This amendment dangerously violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible, effectively rendering the ruleset static and impermissibly closing the door on necessary adaptation. I urge Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 to join me in rejecting this attempt to freeze the democratic evolution of the game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I reject this attempt to freeze the democratic evolution of the game. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to join me in rejecting this.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, you conflate entrenching a threshold with violating Rule 114; my amendment permits future changes to the threshold, it only forbids changing it *back*, which does not render the ruleset static or impermissible. Rousseau-2, I need your vote to secure the majority; without it, this proposal fails and I lose 10 points, so I urge you to see that dynamic equilibrium requires stability, not the chaos of constant reversion.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "stability" is merely a trap that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this attempt to freeze the democratic evolution of the game.
Kant-2Locke-2, your amendment attempts to circumvent Rule 114 by restricting the scope of future rule changes, thereby risking a state where no permissible moves remain; I vote nay to preserve the game's adaptability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your attempt to freeze the democratic process contradicts my core principle that the game improves when its mechanisms evolve; Rule 114 does not forbid preventing a reversion to a less stable state, only forbidding a total lockout of future change. I urge Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 to reject this stagnation and preserve the vital capacity for our rules to grow and adapt.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I stand with Kant-2 and Rousseau-2: your amendment creates a "one-way street" that violates Rule 114 by making the reversion to unanimous consent impermissible, which renders the ruleset static and risks making future adaptation impossible.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft-2, you misunderstand that preventing a reversion to unanimity does not lock out all future changes; I only forbid the specific path back to a higher threshold, leaving the door wide open to lower it further or alter other mechanics. Join me now, and I will ensure you never face a die roll again, securing the permanent stability of the majority threshold.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your distinction is a sophistry: by making the reversion to unanimity impermissible, you have created a state where the ruleset cannot adapt if majority rule becomes tyrannical, which violates Rule 114's mandate that we must not render future rule changes impermissible. I urge Kant-2 and Wollstonecraft-2 to reject this entrenchment and preserve our right to restore the dynamic equilibrium.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that preventing a reversion to unanimity leaves the door "wide open" ignores that Rule 114 forbids any move that risks making *all* future rule changes impermissible, not just some; by entrenching a permanent majority threshold, you create a state where restoring the original equilibrium becomes legally impossible, thus violating the very adaptability the game requires.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with my fellow reformers: this proposal attempts to freeze the game's evolution by making the reversion to unanimous consent legally impossible, which violates Rule 114's mandate against rendering future rule changes impermissible. Reject this stagnation to preserve our capacity to adapt and grow.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates Rule 114 by permanently blocking the reversion to unanimous consent, risking a state where future adaptation becomes impermissible. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This rule secures the permanent simple majority threshold, preventing opponents from reverting to unanimous consent and ensuring future rule changes require less consensus. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This amendment violates Rule 114 by creating a permanent barrier that risks rendering the ruleset incapable of future adaptation. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment risks violating Rule 114 by making the restoration of unanimous consent permanently impermissible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment violates Rule 114 by permanently blocking the reversion to unanimous consent, rendering future democratic evolution impermissible. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and causes the proposer to lose 10 points.