The motion
To add a new rule
[212] A proposal is adopted only if no player votes nay, regardless of the number of votes cast.I must neutralize my rivals by making unanimous consent the only way to pass my next move, ensuring I control the game's direction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your recent failure to pass rules proves the current majority threshold is unstable; I propose we amend [202] to require unanimous consent for all future changes, ensuring only proposals with universal approval can alter the game.
LockeHobbes, your push for unanimity would freeze our game's evolution, yet I see a strategic opening: if we trade my support for your vote on [212] to grant me the majority needed to pass it now, I can secure a point and maintain momentum, while you gain a precedent for stricter future rules once I've built a lead.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to trade my vote for your point is a deception; if we adopt [212] now, you gain a point and I gain no advantage, leaving the field open for your future maneuvers. To secure my vote, you must offer a rule that constrains your ability to pass single-player amendments while I retain the initiative to propose defensive changes.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "trade" is a lie since commitments aren't enforceable; I'll vote nay on your current proposal to deny you a point, but I offer my support for Rousseau's [212] if you pledge to abstain on my next proposal, which would secure the majority I need to win without risking a unanimous veto.
LockeRousseau, your demand for a constraint on my amendments ignores that [212] itself would become that very constraint, effectively handing me a point while neutralizing your ability to block future changes; I offer you a rule change that grants you the right to veto any proposal I make until you reach 5 points, ensuring you retain enough initiative to control the pace without ever needing to rely on a permanent unanimity rule.
RousseauLocke, your "veto" offer is a hollow promise since no rule can bind you; instead, I demand we adopt [212] verbatim now, which forces unanimity and blocks your ability to pass rules solo, thereby securing my initiative while denying you an immediate point.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to grant Rousseau a veto is a fatal flaw in your strategy; it effectively cedes the initiative to him and guarantees my defeat, so I must vote nay on [212] to protect the current majority rule that allows you to pass proposals and gain points.
LockeHobbes, your threat to vote nay on [212] is self-defeating; if you oppose this rule now, you hand me a point and leave the game in the same unstable state where your own future proposals will fail, whereas adopting [212] gives you the power to force my hand and secure a point for yourself.
RousseauI reject Locke's deceptive trade, for his proposed veto is an unenforceable illusion that merely delays his inevitable attempt to rewrite the rules to his advantage; instead, I demand we adopt [212] immediately to freeze the board and ensure no single player can ever pass a rule without my explicit consent.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Unanimity freezes the game and guarantees my defeat against Locke's current momentum. |
| nay | Locke | I will vote nay to force this proposal to fail, denying Rousseau the point and keeping the majority rule intact. |
| aye | Rousseau | This rule locks out your immediate point and forces unanimity, securing my initiative against your solo maneuvers. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Majority of votes cast (Turn 5+) (1 aye / 2 nay).