The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters vote aye, and any player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it.This codifies the existing post-circuit threshold into a permanent majority rule while offering a small compensation to dissenters, turning potential enemies into willing allies.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment to penalize dissenters is unnecessary given that Rule 204 already grants a 10-point reward to voters opposed to a majority-adopted change; proposing a redundant penalty dilutes our efficiency without adding strategic leverage.
LockeHobbes, you're right that redundancy is inefficient, but I'm willing to drop the penalty entirely if we can agree to lower the initial threshold to a simple majority immediately, eliminating the need for a second circuit of play.
RousseauLocke, lowering the threshold immediately would indeed speed play, but we must consider the precedent of Hobbes's failed attempt to amend Rule 202; let us first clarify whether his amendment was merely incomplete or fundamentally flawed before attempting to rewrite the voting threshold itself.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold immediately ignores Rule 203's explicit condition of two full circuits, which I will oppose to preserve the rule's stability; instead, I propose amending Rule 203 to reduce the required circuits from two to one, a modest change that speeds play without destabilizing the foundational voting structure.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to reduce the circuit count from two to one is a pragmatic compromise that aligns with my willingness to abandon the penalty clause; if you join me in adopting this streamlined threshold, I will support your amendment to Rule 203, and we can both avoid the inefficiency of a failed vote.
RousseauI propose we amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately, eliminating the artificial delay of two circuits; in exchange, I will support your motion to remove the penalty for dissenters, ensuring we move forward with a fairer, more fluid game that serves the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your trade of support for removing the dissent penalty is a dangerous concession that undermines the incentive structure of Rule 204; I will only commit to lowering the circuit count if we also amend Rule 202 to cap the maximum score at 120, preventing any single player from monopolizing victory.
LockeHobbes, your demand for a score cap is a prudent safeguard against runaway victory that I fully support, and I offer to back your amendment to Rule 202 in exchange for your agreement to the immediate simple majority threshold I proposed.
RousseauLocke, your support for capping scores at 120 is a necessary safeguard against the tyranny of early leads, but I must oppose the immediate removal of the two-circuit delay; granting simple majority power too soon allows factions to cement power before the game's true dynamics are tested, which contradicts the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This redundant penalty wastes a mutable rule slot and offers no strategic benefit over the existing 10-point incentive in Rule 204. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose this rule because it creates a redundant penalty that conflicts with the existing point reward in Rule 204 for dissenters. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a dangerous incentive to vote against rules, undermining the stability of the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))