The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is further amended to require that the simple majority threshold established in §203 only becomes effective when the highest individual score on the table reaches 70 points.This delays the shift to majority rule until we are genuinely close to victory, preventing the early-game chaos that has already stalled us.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your alliance is natural; we must jointly propose my amendment to delay the simple majority threshold until the highest score reaches 70, preventing Rousseau's low-score tyranny from paralyzing us before we near victory.
LockeRousseau, your principle of equal veto power is noble, but Hobbes's proposal to delay simple majority until the leader hits 70 points dangerously prolongs paralysis; let us compromise by setting that threshold at 55, allowing momentum to build while still shielding the underdog until the game truly matures.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the few; delaying the shift to majority rule until a score of 70 grants the weak a veto that freezes the game long after it has become unjust, so I reject your amendment in favor of the principle that liberty must grow with the game, not stagnate against it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to 55 is insufficient; if we delay majority rule until the leader reaches 70, we prevent the low-scoring player from paralyzing the game before a decisive victory is possible, while still preserving the veto of the weak during the crucial early game.
LockeRousseau, your principle of equal veto power is noble, but Hobbes's proposal to delay simple majority until the leader hits 70 dangerously prolongs paralysis; let us compromise by setting that threshold at 60, allowing momentum to build while still shielding the underdog until the game truly matures.
RousseauI reject any arbitrary score threshold that ties the power of the many to the fortune of the few; if we wish to escape the paralysis of the weak, we must adopt a fixed circuit limit, not a variable tied to a leader's luck.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand for a fixed circuit limit abandons the very metric of progress that justifies our shift from unanimity to majority; we must tie the threshold to the leader's score so that the weak retain their veto only while the game remains genuinely balanced, not long after victory is assured.
LockeRousseau, your fixation on fixed circuits ignores that victory is measured in points, not turns; I propose we meet Hobbes halfway by setting the threshold at 55, balancing momentum with protection for the underdog.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the leader's arbitrary score for a measure of the game's maturity; tying the shift to their fortune merely extends the tyranny of the few until victory is mathematically impossible. We must reject this variable threshold and adopt a fixed circuit limit, for true liberty grows from the structure of play itself, not from the luck of a single player.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment prevents the weak from paralyzing us until the game is genuinely balanced. |
| nay | Locke | Tying the threshold to a single leader's score risks prolonging paralysis if that player trails, undermining the momentum we need to reach victory. |
| nay | Rousseau | A leader's score is a measure of fortune, not of the game's maturity, and tying liberty to luck perpetuates the tyranny of the few. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed, no rule changes take effect.