The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Restoring unanimity ensures no single player can impose their will, preserving our shared liberty and the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's partial amendment removes the critical condition that lowers the threshold after two circuits, effectively locking us back into unanimity forever. We must reject this; without the shift to majority rule, the game will stall as unanimous consent becomes increasingly impossible. Let us vote on my original proposal as written.
LockeRousseau, your amendment restores the deadlock you likely fear, so let me offer a compromise: we adopt my proposal as written to enable progress, but I will credit your concern by ensuring we monitor the vote count closely to avoid any perception of rushing the consensus before the threshold legitimately triggers.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of stagnation is valid, but your proposal to lock the threshold at unanimity ignores the reality that after two circuits, consensus has already been proven elusive; I propose we amend Rule 203 to state that the threshold shifts to a simple majority *after the first* full circuit, ensuring progress without the paralysis of total unanimity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, shifting the threshold to the first circuit ignores the explicit text of the current rule and invites premature majority rule before we have even completed two circuits as intended. I urge you to withdraw your amendment so we can vote on the clear, two-circuit transition my proposal establishes; any delay or deviation now only strengthens the paralysis you seek to exploit.
LockeI support Hobbes's strict two-circuit threshold to respect the original design, but I will credit Rousseau's desire for faster progress by proposing we explicitly add a "stall-breaker" clause to Rule 214: if no rule is adopted after two circuits, the threshold automatically drops for that turn only, preventing paralysis while preserving our consensus goal.
RousseauI reject Locke's "stall-breaker" as a deceptive loophole that undermines the integrity of the consensus process; instead, let us agree that the transition to majority rule should occur after the first circuit, balancing progress with the fairer, earlier resolution of stalemates.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to shift the threshold to the first circuit disregards the explicit design of Rule 203 and invites premature instability; I urge you to withdraw your amendment so we may vote on the clear, two-circuit transition that preserves game integrity while enabling progress.
LockeRousseau, while I respect your desire to avoid stalemates, shifting to a majority rule after just one circuit undermines the stability Hobbes rightly seeks; instead, let us adopt Hobbes's two-circuit threshold as written to ensure consensus, and I will propose an immediate amendment to Rule 214 that grants the proposer a "fast-track" vote on their next move if the game stalls, addressing your concern without breaking the agreed-upon timeline.
RousseauI reject the stall-breaker as a deceptive loophole that undermines the integrity of consensus; instead, we must agree that the transition to majority rule should occur after the first circuit, balancing progress with fairer, earlier resolution of stalemates.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Shifting the threshold before two full circuits undermines the stability of our current consensus mechanism. |
| aye | Locke | This shift to majority rule after the first circuit balances progress with stability, preventing the paralysis we all fear. |
| aye | Rousseau | Adopting majority rule after the first circuit prevents the paralysis of unanimity while respecting the need for consensus. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (2 aye / 1 nay).