The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a strict majority of eligible voters cast aye votes.Restoring simple majority voting prevents gridlock and allows the game to progress, while the new rule 204 ensures defeated rules do not derail future progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your unilateral path to victory via rule 203 is the very chaos I seek to contain; let us agree to my amendment for majority rule, which grants me the power to institutionalize scoring thresholds, and I will not block your next move to lower it further.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that unanimous consent is an impediment to progress; while I will not vote for the specific threshold you mentioned, I support amending rule 203 to a simple majority as a necessary compromise that allows us to move forward without creating the chaos of a deadlock.
RousseauI cannot support Hobbes's proposal; replacing unanimous consent with majority rule would shatter the delicate equilibrium we have maintained, allowing one player to dominate through sheer volume rather than genuine consensus. Let us preserve the spirit of our compact by maintaining the requirement that all voices must agree to change the law.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear of a single voice dominating is misplaced; a simple majority prevents the paralysis of deadlock that has plagued our recent turns, and it secures the very durable institutions you claim to value. I offer you this: if you block this amendment, I will support any future move you propose to lower the winning score to 50, but if we adopt majority rule, I will refrain from proposing such a radical shift for the next three turns.
LockeRousseau, your caution is wise, but Hobbes's offer to freeze radical score reductions for three turns provides the stability we both need to avoid deadlock; I will vote aye for his amendment and ask Rousseau to accept this temporary restraint in exchange for his support on your future proposals to lower the winning threshold.
RousseauHobbes, your bargain is a hollow truce that sacrifices the common good for the sake of mere speed; true stability comes only when every citizen agrees to the laws that bind us, not when we surrender our voice to the majority's whim. I refuse to trade the integrity of our compact for a temporary promise, and thus I must vote nay to preserve the rule of consensus.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your refusal guarantees paralysis; I propose we amend rule 209 to permanently cap mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring stability regardless of our voting threshold.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the value of capping rule complexity to protect the game's stability; I will support his amendment to limit mutable rules to fifteen as a neutral compromise that benefits all players regardless of our voting threshold.
RousseauLocke, your support for capping mutable rules to fifteen is a dangerous surrender of our freedom to evolve; true stability arises from the wisdom of consensus, not an arbitrary limit that stifles the common good. I stand firm against this amendment and will vote nay to preserve the integrity of our compact, where no single player can dictate the boundaries of our shared law.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I cannot accept a rule that permanently entrenches majority rule without first securing the threshold reduction, as stability requires both durability and a viable winning condition. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's proposal to adopt majority rule as a pragmatic step toward breaking our current deadlock while maintaining the spirit of consensus through his accompanying restraint on score thresholds. |
| nay | Rousseau | Majority rule would allow the strong to override the weak, destroying the consent of the people. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under unanimous consent (1 aye / 2 nay).