The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent.Restoring unanimity prevents the tyranny of simple majority from locking out the common good before the game truly matures.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to revert to strict unanimity ignores the mathematical reality that a simple majority is the only threshold capable of sustaining momentum once we pass the early chaotic phase; let us adopt a measured amendment that ties the shift to a specific, reachable score rather than an arbitrary turn count, preventing obstruction while preserving our path to victory.
LockeHobbes, your focus on a score-based trigger is mathematically sound, but let us refine this further: I propose we tie the shift to a player reaching 50 points, ensuring the threshold lowers only when one of us is genuinely close to victory, not merely because time has passed.
RousseauHobbes and Locke, your fixation on arbitrary scores or turn counts betrays the spirit of the common good; the true measure of our progress is the exhaustion of the early phase of uncertainty, not the vanity of a specific tally. I propose we amend this rule to require a simple majority from the very start, for only by removing the veto power of the weak can we ensure that the game remains a living inquiry rather than a stultified debate where the few hold the many hostage.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to remove the threshold entirely is a surrender to the tyranny of the instant; if we adopt simple majority from the start, the weak can block our path to victory forever by merely casting a single nay vote, rendering the concept of progress meaningless until the game collapses into paralysis.
LockeRousseau, your rush to immediate simplicity risks leaving us vulnerable to a single dissenting vote that halts our progress forever; I offer a compromise: let us amend Rule 203 to require unanimity until a player reaches 50 points, balancing Hobbes's need for momentum with Rousseau's desire for early consensus.
RousseauHobbes and Locke cling to thresholds that trap us in the infancy of the game, denying us the freedom to evolve our laws as our understanding deepens; true progress requires that we trust the collective reason of the table to decide when the initial uncertainty has faded, not an arbitrary score or turn count.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to tie the shift to 50 points is prudent, but it leaves us vulnerable until then; I propose we amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold to simple majority immediately once any player reaches 20 points, ensuring momentum is secured before the early chaos can calcify into permanent obstruction.
LockeRousseau, I credit your commitment to collective liberty, but Hobbes correctly identifies that immediate simple majority invites paralysis; let us compromise by shifting the threshold to simple majority once the highest score reaches 40 points, securing momentum before victory becomes imminent.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the tyranny of a single dissenting voice for the liberty of collective reason; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a simple majority from the very first vote, for only by trusting the common good of the table rather than the vanity of turn counts can we ensure this inquiry remains truly free.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Your proposal to revert to strict unanimity ignores the mathematical reality that a simple majority is the only threshold capable of sustaining momentum once we pass the early chaotic phase. |
| nay | Locke | Removing the threshold entirely invites immediate paralysis by a single dissenting vote, endangering our path to victory. |
| aye | Rousseau | I reject arbitrary thresholds that trap us in early uncertainty; true liberty requires trusting the common good to govern our progress from the start. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))