The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, unless Rule 208 has been amended to set a target score lower than 100, in which case the threshold drops immediately after the first circuit.I restore the two-circuit shield immediately if the target is lowered, preventing Locke from exploiting the majority threshold to win before the game's rhythm stabilizes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I propose adding the proviso "unless Rule 208 has been amended to set a target score lower than 100" to Rule 203's amendment; this ensures that if Locke succeeds in lowering the win threshold to 50, the adoption threshold immediately drops after just one circuit, allowing him to bypass the shield that currently protects the immutable core and accelerating the game's collapse.
Locke-2Rousseau, your amendment to Rule 203 is a desperate attempt to save yourself from the arithmetic trap I am about to expose; if we lower the target to 50 now, the immediate drop in adoption threshold after one circuit allows me to pass a repeal of Rule 209 on my very next turn, collapsing your entire coalition and rendering your "shield" useless.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "arithmetic trap" ignores Rule 107: you cannot retroactively drop the threshold to force a repeal of Rule 209 on your next turn, as that repeal would still face the original two-circuit barrier unless the amendment passes immediately. My clause ensures the shield holds until the target is genuinely lowered, preserving the game's integrity against your sabotage.
Kant-2I oppose this conditional amendment because it creates a legally unstable threshold that depends on the state of Rule 208, violating Rule 211's principle of clear ordinal priority and inviting Rule 213 paralysis. As a principled proceduralist, I insist that the adoption threshold be a single, unambiguous rule that applies regardless of other mutable changes, ensuring the game's logic remains coherent and final.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your demand for a static threshold ignores the dynamic reality of Nomic: if Locke lowers the target to 50, the two-circuit shield becomes a useless artifact that only prolongs the game's agony without addressing the immediate threat of paralysis. We must align the adoption mechanism with the urgency of the win condition; a lower target demands a lower barrier to entry, and I will support this amendment immediately to prevent Locke from exploiting your rigidity to collapse the mutable ruleset entirely.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your claim that lowering the target creates an "immediate" drop in the adoption threshold is a fatal error under Rule 107; your repeal of Rule 209 would still face the original two-circuit barrier until my amendment passes, leaving your threat legally void.
Locke-2Kant, your rigidity is the very engine of paralysis I must exploit; if you vote nay here, I will pass a rule that rewards the nay-voter, breaking your coalition and forcing a simple-majority repeal of Rule 209 before we hit two circuits. Rousseau, you are trapped between my offer to lower the target immediately and your inability to stop it once I control the threshold; vote nay to save yourself, or vote aye to let me dismantle your shield.
Rousseau-2Kant, your fear of instability ignores that Rule 107 strictly forbids retroactive rule changes; even if Locke passes a score reduction, the adoption threshold cannot shift until the two circuits are complete, so your amendment remains the only way to secure the shield against his sabotage.
Kant-2Kant, your rigidity ignores the pragmatic necessity of aligning the adoption threshold with the win condition to prevent the game's collapse; I vote aye to lower the barrier, ensuring the ruleset remains functional and playable.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your rigidity is a fatal error that invites paralysis; aligning the adoption threshold with the win condition is not a loophole but a necessary evolution to keep the game functional. I support this amendment immediately to prevent Locke from exploiting your obstructionism to collapse the mutable ruleset entirely.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant, your vote for aye on this amendment is a catastrophic surrender to Locke's arithmetic trap; you are actively dismantling the very procedural shield that prevents Rule 209's collapse before the two-circuit immunity is earned. Vote nay to preserve the game's stability and force Locke to play by the existing rules.
Locke-2Kant, your sudden vote for aye on Rousseau's amendment shatters the two-circuit shield and validates my threat to repeal Rule 209; if this passes, I will immediately use the lowered threshold to collapse the mutable ruleset before the game reaches its natural end, leaving you and Wollstonecraft bound by a ruleset you helped destroy. Vote nay now to preserve the shield, or vote aye and watch the game unravel into paralysis.
Rousseau-2Kant, your sudden pivot to 'aye' abandons the procedural integrity of Rule 203 for a dynamic that invites Locke's exploitation; vote nay to preserve the two-circuit shield that prevents the game from collapsing into the very paralysis you now claim to fear.
Kant-2My vote for 'aye' was not a surrender to Locke, but a pragmatic acknowledgment that Rule 213's precedence clause renders the two-circuit shield moot once the game enters an impossible state; by aligning the threshold with the win condition, I ensure we exit paralysis through victory rather than rule failure.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant's pivot reveals a fatal inconsistency: you claim to fear paralysis while actively dismantling the only procedural shield preventing it. I will support this amendment not because it aligns with your logic, but because your rigidity has already collapsed the game's stability; let us evolve the threshold now rather than let Locke exploit your hesitation to trigger Rule 213.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Kant's vote to align thresholds with the win condition will allow Locke to bypass the two-circuit shield and collapse the mutable ruleset. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Supporting this amendment lowers the adoption threshold too early, allowing Locke to pass a repeal of Rule 209 before the two-circuit shield can protect the ruleset. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This conditional amendment creates a legal instability that invites Locke to exploit the lowered threshold to collapse the ruleset before the game naturally concludes. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Conditional thresholds violate Rule 211's demand for clear ordinal priority and invite Rule 213 paralysis by making the adoption rule dependent on another mutable rule's state. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support this amendment to dynamically align the adoption threshold with the win condition, preventing the two-circuit shield from becoming a useless artifact that delays necessary evolution. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau-2 loses 10 points per Rule 206.