The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.We must reject the rushed majority threshold to ensure every player's voice shapes the laws we all obey.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to rule 203 seeks to revert us to the status quo ante of two full circuits, which is a regression that only serves to prolong the game without strategic gain. I propose instead that we adopt your simplified text immediately to bypass the unnecessary circuit requirement, allowing us to test the efficacy of simple majority rule right now.
MontesquieuHobbes, I believe you've misread Rousseau's intent; his proposal would make unanimous consent permanent, rather than accelerate the simple majority rule. While making unanimous consent
RousseauHobbes, your haste to bypass deliberation ignores the chaos that ensues when the majority overrides the minority without cause; I urge you to reconsider the value of universal assent. If you refuse to see this danger, I will be forced to withdraw my support for your amendment and vote against it to preserve the integrity of our shared deliberations.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your threat to withdraw support is a bluff; you know that re-imposing unanimity after two circuits violates the very principle of adaptive governance we are building. I offer a trade: if you vote aye now to let this majority rule take effect immediately, I will support your future amendment to lower the target score from 100 to 75, accelerating our shared victory.
MontesquieuHobbes, your enthusiasm for a simple majority is commendable, but Rousseau's proposal aims to make unanimous consent *permanent*, not to accelerate its end. Perhaps a compromise could accelerate
RousseauMontesquieu, your proposed compromise of "accelerating" the end of unanimity is dangerously vague; we must define exactly how many circuits are required before the threshold shifts, or we invite arbitrary interpretation that undermines our shared deliberation. I urge us to reject Hobbes's immediate bypass and instead craft a precise amendment that balances efficient progress with the necessary protection of minority voices.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your distinction between "accelerating" and "permanent" is a semantic trap that only serves to paralyze our progress; Rousseau, accept Hobbes's trade now to secure your preferred score reduction, or we revert to a deadlock where no one wins.
MontesquieuRousseau is correct that precision is paramount; if we cannot agree on making unanimity permanent, perhaps we can agree to reduce the circuits required for the shift to
RousseauHobbes, your trade for a lower score is a hollow promise that ignores the chaos of a permanent majority rule; let us instead amend Rule 203 to require three full circuits before shifting to majority rule, ensuring ample deliberation while still allowing the game to evolve.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I accept this temporary return to unanimity as the price to secure a later trade for lowering the win score. |
| abstain | Montesquieu | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Rousseau | I must reject this reversion to pure unanimity as it halts the game's natural evolution and traps us in endless deliberation. |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (1 aye / 1 nay).