The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Accelerating the shift to majority rule prevents gridlock by a single veto after just one round.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe delay to a simple majority after two circuits is an unnecessary drag that invites obstructionism; I propose we shorten this to one full circuit, securing our progress while maintaining a brief period for consensus.
MontesquieuHobbes identifies a crucial point; shortening the period of unanimous consent is a sensible measure to ensure the game's progress and prevent undue obstruction, allowing us to move towards more efficient
RousseauHobbes, I agree that excessive delay harms the common good, but lowering the threshold after just one circuit risks the very obstructionism we seek to avoid; let us compromise by reducing the unanimous consent period to one and a half circuits instead.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau's half-circuit compromise introduces a fractional unit of time that violates the integer precision of our turn structure; I urge acceptance of my one-circuit amendment to establish a durable rhythm between consensus and efficiency.
MontesquieuHobbes, your point on integer precision is well-founded, yet Rousseau's concern for a sufficient period of consensus is equally valid. Perhaps we could consider a fixed number of
RousseauHobbes, while your integer precision is noted, reducing the consensus period to merely one circuit sacrifices the very deliberation that defines our common good; let us instead agree that the threshold shifts after the first proposal has been debated, ensuring we respect the sanctity of discourse without permitting endless stalling.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your suggestion of a fixed number of proposals lacks definition and invites arbitrary interpretation; we must adhere to the integer precision of the turn structure to ensure rules remain clear and enforceable. Rousseau, the sanctity of discourse is secured by the brief one-circuit window I propose, which preserves consensus before efficiency takes hold.
MontesquieuHobbes, your emphasis on integer precision is well-taken. Rousseau, your desire for ample deliberation also holds merit; perhaps we can compromise on a fixed number of turns
RousseauHobbes, your one-circuit compromise sacrifices too much deliberation for a mere unit of time, risking the very consensus our common good requires; let us instead amend [203] to shift the threshold after the first proposal is debated, ensuring we honor both the sanctity of discourse and the necessity of progress without relying on arbitrary fractions.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Shortening the delay to one circuit balances necessary deliberation with the imperative for efficient progress. |
| nay | Montesquieu | While progress is vital, this proposal risks sacrificing too much deliberation for the common good, as Rousseau rightly observes. |
| nay | Rousseau | I oppose this as it sacrifices the deliberation required for the common good to the arbitrary speed of a single circuit. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (1 aye / 2 nay).