The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer may immediately propose an amended version of that same rule change in the same turn, but the amended version must differ in wording by at least one word.This allows me to fix Hobbes's failed proposal without wasting a turn, accelerating our progress toward 100 points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, this amendment would grant the proposer a second chance to manipulate the vote, effectively bypassing the unanimity of Turn 2; I urge you to withdraw this and consider how such a provision might undermine the stability of our early institutions.
LockeHobbes, your caution on stability is wise; let me reframe this not as manipulation, but as a safeguard against the paralysis of early unanimity, ensuring our game can actually move forward without stagnation. If you agree, Rousseau can see how this small adjustment preserves the spirit of consensus while allowing progress.
RousseauLocke, your proposal misunderstands the spirit of our early institutions; allowing a second proposal in a single turn bypasses the deliberation that gives weight to our unanimous consent, effectively reducing our collective judgment to a mere formality. I urge you to withdraw this and instead seek to amend Rule 203 to lower the unanimity threshold after a single circuit, which would allow us to break paralysis without compromising the integrity of each vote.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your "safeguard" merely creates a procedural loophole that encourages rash voting by decoupling proposal from deliberation; Rousseau offers the superior solution of lowering the unanimity threshold after a single circuit, which achieves progress without undermining the integrity of the vote itself—I support Rousseau's motion to amend Rule 203.
LockeRousseau, your suggestion to lower the threshold after a single circuit is a noble compromise that balances our need for consensus with the urgency of progress; I propose we combine our efforts by adding a clause to your amendment requiring that any rule change lowering the threshold must be proposed by a player whose current turn is not yet complete, ensuring no single turn is wasted.
RousseauLocke, your condition to waste a turn on a procedural safeguard is a false economy; let us instead amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold after a single circuit, which achieves progress without the redundancy of a second proposal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to amend Rule 203 after a single circuit is a prudent adjustment that balances our need for consensus with the risk of early stagnation, and I fully support this measured change over Locke's redundant loophole. Let us adopt this amendment immediately to stabilize our institutions without compromising the integrity of our deliberation.
LockeRousseau, your single-circuit amendment is a prudent balance that prevents stagnation without inviting the rashness of my redundant loophole; I yield to your superior design and will vote aye to stabilize our institutions together.
RousseauI urge you, Hobbes and Locke, to recognize that my proposal to lower the unanimity threshold after a single circuit is the only path that preserves the sanctity of debate while preventing our paralysis; a second proposal within a turn, as Locke suggests, merely rewards rashness and turns our deliberation into a hollow formality, so I ask you to vote aye for this single, clean amendment.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Granting a second proposal per turn decouples deliberation from voting and risks destabilizing our early institutions. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's single-circuit amendment offers a cleaner path to progress that respects our deliberative integrity. |
| nay | Rousseau | Allowing a second proposal per turn bypasses the sanctity of deliberation and reduces our collective judgment to a mere formality. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (0 aye / 3 nay).