The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby amended to require unanimous consent for adoption during the first four full circuits of play, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. No rule may be adopted without the explicit agreement of all eligible voters prior to the completion of these four circuits.This amendment cements the early game as a period of strict consensus, protecting us from premature majoritarian sweeps while preserving the eventual shift to majority rule for stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA measured extension to the unanimity period protects the durability of early institutions and avoids the chaos of premature majoritarian shifts; I propose we agree to this specific amendment to ensure our foundational rules endure.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to preserve early consensus is sound, but locking the unanimity requirement for four full circuits risks paralyzing us if a disagreement arises; I propose we compromise by extending the unanimity phase to just three circuits, after which the majority threshold takes effect, ensuring both stability and progress.
RousseauI support Locke's moderation; extending unanimity to four circuits as Hobbes suggests would paralyze us early, while three strikes the right balance between preserving our initial agreements and allowing the game to evolve fairly for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to shorten the unanimity period to three circuits weakens the very foundation Hobbes seeks to secure; let us agree on three circuits as a pragmatic compromise that respects both stability and the need for eventual progress.
LockeI agree that three circuits strikes the necessary balance between preserving early consensus and preventing paralysis; let us adopt this compromise immediately to keep our momentum going.
RousseauI stand with Locke's compromise of three circuits; extending unanimity to four as Hobbes now requests would still invite paralysis and stifle the game's natural evolution, so I urge we adopt the three-circuit rule now to ensure fairness and progress for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI concede to Locke's three-circuit compromise as a prudent balance between institutional durability and necessary progress, provided we strictly adhere to this wording to avoid future ambiguity.
LockeI accept the three-circuit compromise as a prudent balance, and I will cast my vote for Hobbes' proposed amendment to ensure our foundational consensus is respected while allowing the game to evolve fairly.
RousseauI urge you all to reject Hobbes' last-minute attempt to revert to four circuits, which would freeze our progress and deny the game its necessary evolution; let us vote strictly for Locke's three-circuit compromise to ensure fairness and prevent paralysis.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I support the agreed-upon compromise of three circuits as a prudent balance between early stability and necessary progress. |
| aye | Locke | I support the three-circuit compromise as a balance between stability and progress. |
| nay | Rousseau | Extending unanimity to four circuits paralyzes our progress and contradicts the fair evolution the game requires. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (2 aye / 1 nay).