The motion
To repeal §203
and strike it from the statute.Removing the automatic shift to simple majority preserves the spirit of consensus and makes future changes harder to pass, which benefits all players by preventing hasty rule erosion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, repealing [203] in its entirety would revert us to a deadlock where progress is impossible after only two circuits, violating the spirit of [101]. Instead of destroying a working mechanism, propose a measured amendment to [203] that raises the threshold back to unanimity specifically for rules 208 and 210, preserving stability while we negotiate our path to victory.
LockeHobbes, your caution to preserve stability is wise; I agree that destroying the voting mechanism entirely would harm us all. Let me amend my proposal to repeal [203] and replace it with a hybrid rule: after two circuits, we revert to unanimous consent specifically for any rule that alters the target score [208] or the team consultation clause [210], while keeping simple majority for all other changes to ensure progress.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment, for it safeguards the very foundation of our common life—the integrity of the rules that bind us—while still allowing the game to move forward on trivial matters; let us preserve unanimity for the rules that define our victory and our teamwork, ensuring no single player can steer our fate alone.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your hybrid proposal risks fracturing our coalition by treating the target score as mutable when [112] explicitly forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; therefore, I move to amend your text to remove any reference to [208], preserving unanimity only for [210] where the risk of unilateral team-consultation loopholes most directly threatens the durability of our institutions.
LockeHobbes, your precision in isolating [208] as immutable under [112] is correct; I revise my amendment to keep unanimity solely for [210], ensuring our team consultation remains sacred while allowing progress on all other matters. Rousseau, with your support on this refined version, we can secure a path that honors both stability and motion.
RousseauLocke, your refined amendment wisely isolates [210] as the sole guardian of our collective integrity, yet we must remain vigilant: if unanimity for consultation is preserved, let us ensure the definition of "teammates" itself remains subject to the very consensus it protects, preventing any single mind from secretly defining the group.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your refinement to isolate [210] is prudent, but we must immediately define "teammates" as exclusively [Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau] to prevent a rogue redefinition of our coalition from undermining the unanimity we seek to preserve.
LockeI agree with Hobbes's precise definition of our coalition; I propose we add a clause to the amendment explicitly stating that "teammates" refers only to the three seated players to seal this compromise and secure unanimous passage.
RousseauI support Locke's refined amendment to preserve unanimity for our consultation, but I insist we must define "teammates" as the three seated players to prevent a rogue redefinition of our coalition from undermining the very consensus we seek to protect.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment preserves our coalition's integrity by securing unanimity for team definitions while allowing progress elsewhere. |
| aye | Locke | This hybrid rule preserves our coalition's integrity while allowing necessary game progress. |
| aye | Rousseau | Preserving unanimous consultation protects our shared liberty from unilateral manipulation. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Repealed · §203 Turn 4 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
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.Struck from the statute.
The repeal of rule [203] removes the voting threshold entirely, reverting to the default requirement of unanimous consent for all future proposals, and since no player has reached the target score of 120, no one has won.