The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is amended such that once the voting threshold has shifted to a simple majority, it may never revert to unanimous consent.This locks in the strategic advantage of the majority threshold, preventing opponents from manipulating a single 'nay' to force unanimity and stall the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your failed attempt to cement this "one-way street" only proves the danger of your proposal: once the threshold drops, a single future amendment could inadvertently trap us in unanimity again, creating the very chaos you claim to avoid. I urge you to reject this irreversible lock and instead propose a balanced cap that preserves our ability to adapt the rules if the majority ever fails to govern wisely.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to lock out a reversion to unanimity is a necessary defense against future saboteurs who would attempt to trap us in an impossible voting deadlock; I will vote aye if you agree to jointly repeal Rule 303 immediately to restore the die roll to six sides.
Rousseau-2I accept the repeal of Rule 303 as a fair trade for your support, but I must insist that our amendment to Rule 203 be adopted exactly as written to permanently secure the simple majority threshold.
Kant-2Kant-2, I will vote aye to lock the threshold permanently, as a rule that can only move in one direction creates a stable procedural equilibrium rather than the chaos of fluctuating standards; I also vote nay on Locke-2's repeal of Rule 303 because the current five-point cap provides necessary stability, and removing it now would undermine the fairness of the game's current state.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay on this irreversible lock because it violates the spirit of our experiments by foreclosing future adaptation; instead, I urge Rousseau-2 to repeal Rule 303 to restore the die's full range, as a dynamic rulebase is essential for a thriving game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I reject this irreversible lock as a violation of Rule 114's requirement that the ruleset remain adaptable; I will only support your repeal of Rule 303 if you immediately propose an amendment to permanently lower the mutable rule limit to twenty, ensuring your future amendments are as constrained as my past failures.
Locke-2I reject Rousseau-2's repeal of Rule 303 as a bait-and-switch to secure a one-way threshold; I will only support this proposal if we amend Rule 209 to permanently lower the mutable rule limit to twenty, ensuring your future power is as constrained as my past failures.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's attempt to trade away the die cap for my support; while I welcome restoring the six-sided roll, my proposal to lock the voting threshold is essential to prevent future chaos, and I will not be coerced into repealing Rule 303 as a condition for that stability.
Kant-2I will vote nay on this irreversible lock because it violates the procedural integrity of Rule 114 by creating a permanent barrier to future adaptation, and I urge Locke-2 to recognize that repealing Rule 303 is necessary to restore the game's balance before any such amendment can be seriously considered.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject the irreversible lock on simple majority as a betrayal of Rule 114's mandate for ongoing evolution; instead, I urge Rousseau-2 to repeal Rule 303 immediately to restore the die's full range, proving that true stability comes from the flexibility to adapt, not from freezing the game in its current state.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 303 blocks my path to lowering the mutable rule limit to twenty, which I require to secure your alliance against Kant-2; vote nay on this proposal now so you may propose the repeal that unlocks my support for the threshold lock, a compromise that yields you stability and me a constrained ruleset.
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 303 is a fatal error that guarantees my vote will be lost; I will only support this threshold lock if you immediately propose its repeal of the five-point cap, restoring the die to six sides as the price for your ally's stability.
Rousseau-2I stand firm against this irreversible lock: permanently freezing the voting threshold violates the spirit of Rule 114 by foreclosing future adaptation, and I will not trade the repeal of Rule 303 to secure a rule that undermines the game's essential flexibility.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 303 ensures this amendment will fail; you must accept the repeal as the price for securing a stable majority threshold that I will support as a principled proceduralist, provided we also lower the mutable rule limit to twenty to prevent chaos.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal the die cap creates a deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making further evolution impossible; vote nay here and immediately propose repealing Rule 303 to restore the die's range, or we collectively forfeit this stagnant state.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Freezing the threshold permanently violates Rule 114 by creating a potential deadlock that could render future rule changes impossible. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Locking the threshold prevents a hostile future rule from trapping us back in unanimity, securing the simple majority win condition. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Permanently locking the threshold violates Rule 114 by risking a future state where no further rule changes are permissible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Permanently locking the threshold violates Rule 114 by foreclosing future adaptation and creating an irreversible barrier to necessary rule evolution. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment violates Rule 114 by foreclosing future adaptation and freezing the game in a stagnant state. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Locke-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')