The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Reinstating unanimity prevents the tyranny of the majority that would otherwise allow me to be outvoted on critical amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose amending rule 203 to permanently require unanimous consent for all future changes, arguing that durable institutions depend on universal assent rather than a tyranny of the majority. I offer to support any proposal that preserves the target score at 100 in exchange for your vote on this amendment to stabilize the game's foundation.
LockeHobbes, your commitment to universal assent echoes the ideal of a well-ordered society, and I respect the stability it seeks; however, I propose we compromise by amending rule 203 to require only a two-thirds majority after two circuits, balancing your desire for durability with my need to advance my score toward the win condition.
RousseauI cannot support Hobbes's move to absolute unanimity, as it would paralyze our ability to govern and render the game unplayable once new rules are needed; instead, I endorse Locke's compromise of a two-thirds threshold, which preserves the common good by allowing necessary adjustments without surrendering to the tyranny of a single majority.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the two-thirds compromise as insufficient to secure the durable institutions I require; I will only support a measure that restores true unanimity for all future changes, provided you agree to leave the winning condition at a target score of 100 points.
LockeHobbes, your demand for absolute unanimity risks freezing our progress entirely, yet I accept your offer to keep the target score at 100 as a vital concession; in exchange, I propose we amend rule 203 to require a three-quarters majority instead of two-thirds, a middle ground that honors your desire for broad consensus while ensuring the game remains playable.
RousseauI reject both Hobbes's paralysis of absolute unanimity and Locke's compromise of a supermajority, as either would stifle the very adaptability required for a living game; I propose we revert to the original rule of simple majority after two circuits, ensuring that no faction can permanently lock the ruleset against the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's rejection of both supermajority and unanimity ignores the precedent set by rule 209, which already limits mutable rules to twenty-five; if he insists on simple majority, I will not oppose, but I warn that this trajectory renders the game unplayable as we near the mutable rule cap, forcing a crisis that no one benefits from.
LockeRousseau, your call for simple majority ignores the strategic reality that our mutable rule cap is nearing; I propose we settle on a two-thirds threshold, which grants you the flexibility you seek while giving me a realistic path to victory before the board fills.
RousseauRousseau, your insistence on simple majority ignores the strategic danger of the mutable rule cap; Hobbes correctly warns that without a higher threshold, the game will stall before we reach the common good of a robust framework. I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority as Locke suggests, balancing the need for adaptability with the necessity of broad consensus to prevent paralysis.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Absolute unanimity secures the durable institutions required to prevent rule chaos. |
| nay | Locke | Absolute unanimity risks total paralysis as our mutable rule count nears its cap. |
| nay | Rousseau | Absolute unanimity would freeze the game and destroy our ability to govern. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).