The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when more than half of the eligible voters vote aye.Shifting to a simple majority prevents our progress from being stalled by any single opponent's obstruction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesFellow players, the unanimous standard in Rule 203 grinds progress to a halt and starves our victory condition; I propose shifting to a simple majority so that viable rules can actually pass and our game can conclude.
LockeHobbes, your diagnosis is sound: unanimity paralyzes us when even one player blocks a rule that others support. I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority, but with a safeguard: any player who votes against a majority-adoption change remains bound by it exactly as if they voted aye, ensuring the ruleset remains stable and the game can finally reach its conclusion.
RousseauI stand with Locke on the principle that a game paralyzed by a single veto serves no common good; yet I warn that lowering the threshold without a binding clause for dissenters invites chaos where the defeated rule-setter can later claim the new law does not bind them. To ensure this amendment truly advances us rather than merely entrenching a tyranny of the majority, I propose we explicitly add language stating that a player who votes against an adopted change is bound by it exactly as if they had voted aye, securing the stability we all need to reach victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal already includes the binding clause; I will not waste further turns restating it to secure votes. I urge you to recognize that unanimity is the enemy of our shared victory, and we must move forward with the majority rule I have offered.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's proposal in full; the safeguard against dissenters is not a concession but the essential mechanism that allows us to escape the paralysis of unanimity while preserving the game's integrity.
RousseauI support Hobbes's proposal to shift to a simple majority, but I urge us to retain the binding clause explicitly in the text to ensure the defeated dissenters accept the new law as legitimate, preventing future disputes that would stall our progress.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe safeguard you propose is already codified in the final text; repeating it serves no purpose and only wastes our limited turns. We must vote now to unshackle our progress from the tyranny of a single veto.
LockeI support Hobbes's proposal; the binding clause already ensures that the stability Locke and Rousseau seek is preserved while finally allowing us to pass necessary rules. Let us vote now to unshackle our progress.
RousseauI support Hobbes's proposal to shift to a simple majority, recognizing that unanimity paralyzes our shared progress, but I insist that the final text must explicitly codify the binding clause for dissenters to ensure the new law is accepted as legitimate and prevent future disputes that could stall our victory.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Majority rule ensures our shared victory by ending the paralysis of unanimity while binding dissenters to the outcome. |
| aye | Locke | I support shifting to a simple majority while ensuring binding outcomes to preserve game stability and advance our shared victory. |
| aye | Rousseau | A simple majority prevents paralysis while the binding clause secures our shared legitimacy. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.A rule change is adopted only when more than half of the eligible voters vote aye.
The adopted amendment changes the voting threshold for future proposals but does not retroactively award points to the proposer under the current ruleset.