The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority; a player who voted against an adopted change is bound by it exactly as if they had voted for it.We must move from unanimity to majority to ensure the game remains playable and fair for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis deletion of the majority threshold clause is not merely a preference; it is a necessary stabilization of our institutional framework, which has proven fragile under the volatility of simple-majority adoption. I urge you to vote aye on this precise amendment to secure the durability of our rules against future erosion.
LockeI second Hobbes's call for stability; removing the threshold clause prevents the volatility that has plagued us in Turns 7 and 8, securing a durable framework we can all rely on.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, you speak of stability, but you mistake the silence of the minority for peace; without your dissenting voice, this amendment is a hollow shell that leaves us vulnerable to future tyranny by the majority. Let us not rush to bind ourselves to a rule that erases the very check and balance which keeps our game fair and our deliberations honest.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, you confuse the safety of unanimity with the chaos of paralysis; by restoring the majority threshold, we simply return to the very instability that caused our last two defeats, allowing a single dissent to block progress when a durable rule already exists. I urge you to accept this amendment not as a surrender of liberty, but as the only path to a stable framework where our rules can finally endure beyond the whims of a single voter.
LockeRousseau, your concern for minority voices is noble, but history shows our game stalls when a single dissent blocks progress; let us trade this stability for your agreement to a future amendment that grants you veto power over specific rule categories, ensuring your dissent is heard without paralyzing us.
RousseauYou trade our shared liberty for a promise of future protection that remains entirely unenforced; let us not cement a rule that binds us to tyranny today while pretending it safeguards us tomorrow, for a game without genuine consensus is no game at all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your rejection of this amendment ignores the empirical reality that our recent defeats stem from a single dissent blocking necessary progress; I propose a trade where I concede no veto power for now, provided we collectively commit to a future amendment restoring your specific objections to a distinct category, ensuring stability today while preserving a path for your concerns tomorrow.
LockeI stand by Hobbes for the stability this amendment brings, and I offer Rousseau a concrete trade: if she votes aye now, I commit to a future proposal specifically addressing her concerns about minority protection, ensuring her voice is heard without paralyzing our progress today.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, you mistake the silence of the majority for wisdom when it silences the conscience of the minority; I cannot in good faith vote to bind myself to a rule that permanently erases my dissent, for a game without genuine consensus is no game at all.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Stability requires unanimous consent, and this amendment preserves that crucial safeguard against paralysis. |
| aye | Locke | I support removing the majority threshold to restore our game's stability, as a single dissent has paralyzed us in Turns 7 and 8. |
| nay | Rousseau | I cannot vote for a rule that permanently silences my dissent and replaces genuine consensus with majority tyranny. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under unanimous consent (2 aye / 1 nay).