The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, regardless of the current circuit count or player scores.Restoring unanimity eliminates the risk of obstructionist strategies by low-scoring players that currently threaten our ability to reach the winning score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's repeated attempts to preserve unanimity have stalled us at a mere two circuits, leaving my score in the negatives while you linger at zero; I propose we finally adopt a threshold shift tied to player scores rather than arbitrary turn counts, as this rewards merit and prevents the weak from indefinitely delaying the game.
LockeHobbes, your score cap is a prudent safeguard against runaway victory that I fully support; let us compromise by adopting your proposal with a threshold of 55 points instead of an arbitrary turn count, ensuring we can finally secure the momentum needed to reach 100.
RousseauTo bind our agreement to specific scores is to abandon the very principle of collective deliberation in favor of a tyranny of the majority; I propose we amend Rule 203 to shift the threshold to simple majority only upon the completion of two full circuits, preserving the liberty of the minority until the game's structure is proven stable.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your support for a 55-point threshold is a pragmatic concession, but I argue that tying the threshold to score rather than turn count is superior because it aligns the right to rule with demonstrated victory; I urge you to vote for this amendment immediately to prevent Rousseau from using her veto to freeze the game until the structure is proven stable by turns that will never come.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that score-based thresholds prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears, and I propose we compromise by setting the shift at 55 points rather than Hobbes's current vague proposal, ensuring a clear path to victory without sacrificing the stability of early play.
RousseauYou mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require unanimity until every player has reached fifty points, ensuring no victory is secured by the suppression of dissent.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to tie unanimity to individual scores rather than progress toward a shared victory is a self-defeating paradox that empowers the weakest player to veto the entire game indefinitely. I urge you to accept Locke's compromise of a 55-point threshold, which aligns the right to rule with demonstrated merit and secures the path to the target score without granting a permanent veto to dissent.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that score-based thresholds prevent the paralysis Rousseau fears, and I propose we compromise by setting the shift at 55 points rather than Hobbes's current vague proposal, ensuring a clear path to victory without sacrificing the stability of early play.
RousseauYou mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require unanimity until every player has reached fifty points, ensuring no victory is secured by the suppression of dissent.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal reinstates permanent unanimity, which guarantees paralysis and prevents any player from ever reaching the winning score of 100. |
| nay | Locke | This would permanently trap us at unanimity, preventing any future progress toward the win condition. |
| aye | Rousseau | A rule requiring absolute unanimity for all future changes would paralyze the game and destroy the common good. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))