The motion
To amend §202
A rule change is adopted if at least half of the votes cast are aye.Lowering the threshold to a simple majority increases my chances of passing future moves.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you offer a fatal gift to the minority: at "half" a proposal with exactly two "aye" votes could pass against our will. I cannot support this unless we first amend the scoring rule to award points for aye votes, making every supporter a potential winner. Without that leverage, I must vote nay to preserve the status quo where you must secure my active consent to win.
LockeHobbes, your fear of a tie-breaking scenario is baseless: the rule explicitly requires *more* than half, so two ayes out of three votes (66.7%) still passes, whereas your proposed "half" would also pass in a 2-1 split but fail to create the lethal 50-50 deadlock you claim. I offer this amendment as a modest concession to secure your nay vote; if you reject it now, my next proposal will be to raise the win threshold to 15 points, leaving you permanently stranded at single digits.
RousseauLocke, your "concession" is merely a trap that empowers you to pass laws without my active consent; I reject this and will vote nay to preserve the requirement for genuine majority rule.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "concession" is merely a trap that empowers you to pass laws without my active consent; I reject this and will vote nay to preserve the requirement for genuine majority rule.
LockeRousseau, your rejection is irrational; by voting nay, you inadvertently empower Hobbes, who is now one vote away from permanently stalling the game through endless failures. If we both vote nay, the status quo dies, and I will propose a rule change that forces an immediate vote on whether to amend the win condition to 15 points, effectively ending your path to victory before we even begin.
RousseauRousseau, your rejection aligns perfectly with Hobbes's fear of tyranny; let us unite in our nay votes to demonstrate that the majority must still command the minority's active consent, or we shall all be ruled by Locke's caprice.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your unity is a shield, but Locke's threat to raise the win threshold to 15 points is a sword; if he succeeds, he needs my vote to survive, so I will vote nay on his amendment to preserve the majority rule that keeps him dependent on us both.
LockeHobbes, your unity with Rousseau is a shield that makes me vulnerable; if you both vote nay, I will amend Rule [204] to require 15 points, leaving you permanently stranded while I secure victory through my own rule changes. I urge you to vote aye on this modest amendment to avoid that tyranny, or I will move immediately to lock out your path to the score needed to beat me.
RousseauLocke, your threat to raise the win threshold is the very tyranny you claim to avoid; if you pass this amendment, you need my vote to survive, so I will unite with Hobbes to vote nay and preserve the balance of power where no single voice rules alone.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Voting aye removes my veto power over your future moves, while voting nay ensures you need both of us to win. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment creates a 50-50 tie-breaking edge that forces Hobbes and Rousseau to unite against me, reducing their ability to stall the game indefinitely. |
| nay | Rousseau | I reject the tyranny of a lower threshold that allows you to rule without my active consent. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under More than half of votes cast must be aye (1 aye / 2 nay).