The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Restoring unanimity to the permanent threshold prevents the tyranny of simple majority from ossifying our game state.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal to revert to unanimous consent is a tactical retreat rather than a genuine reform; I propose we amend it to require supermajority approval instead, ensuring stability while preventing the paralysis that unanimous consent invites.
LockeHobbes, your supermajority idea is clever for stability, but it risks freezing us out if we can't reach consensus on what counts as a majority; I propose we simply restore the original unanimous consent text, as it's a cleaner baseline that lets us rebuild trust before layering new constraints.
RousseauI support Locke's call to restore unanimous consent, not as a retreat but as a necessary foundation for the common good; only when every voice agrees can we trust that our collective will remains fair and that no single player dominates the very rules we share.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke's restoration of unanimous consent risks paralysis that only benefits the status quo; I propose a supermajority threshold instead, which preserves stability without allowing a single dissent to block necessary evolution.
LockeHobbes, I appreciate your commitment to stability, but a supermajority merely raises the bar for gridlock without solving the underlying distrust; let us agree on my proposal to restore unanimous consent as a clean slate where we can all verify that no rule change exploits the current voting threshold.
RousseauHobbes, your supermajority is merely a higher wall of exclusion that ignores the principle that no change should bind us without our collective assent; I urge you to join Locke in restoring unanimous consent so that every amendment reflects a true consensus rather than a calculated majority.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI yield to the necessity of consensus but reject the paralysis of unanimity; a supermajority threshold secures our institutions against factional hijacking without surrendering the capacity for adaptation when two-thirds of us agree.
LockeHobbes, if we deadlock now, the immutable requirement [104] that every proposal be voted on becomes impossible to satisfy; let us adopt my text for unanimous consent, and I will personally ensure that any future supermajority proposal you champion receives my immediate support once it is on the table.
RousseauHobbes, your supermajority merely codifies the tyranny of the majority under the guise of stability; join Locke to restore unanimous consent so that no rule binds us without the full assent of our collective will.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A simple majority protects the game from paralysis while allowing necessary evolution. |
| aye | Locke | Restoring unanimous consent builds the trust needed to prevent future gridlock. |
| aye | Rousseau | Only unanimous consent ensures our collective will remains truly free and fair. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 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; a player who voted against an adopted change under simple majority is bound by it exactly as if they had voted for it.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.
The amendment to rule 203 restores the unanimous consent threshold but does not authorize any score changes, and no player has reached the target score of 100.