The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.I extend the unanimity buffer to three circuits to ensure Hobbes and Kant have time to build a broad coalition before the tyranny of the majority begins, protecting our fragile consensus against future obstruction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's extension of the unanimity period; delaying the shift to majority rule grants a single obstructionist player the power to freeze progress indefinitely, a tyranny incompatible with any durable institution.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his sharp warning regarding the risk of paralysis, yet I urge the table to recognize that three circuits—reached when scores approach the target—provides a necessary buffer for consensus-building before the tyranny of simple majority takes hold.
RousseauI urge you to see that extending unanimity to three circuits merely prolongs the tyranny of obstruction; at our current standing, this delay guarantees a stalemate where no player can ever hope to reach the target, rendering the game impossible rather than merely difficult.
KantI urge the table to reject this extension, for it violates the principle of procedural justice by granting a single dissenting player the power to indefinitely paralyze the game's evolution, which is precisely the tyranny we must avoid.
WollstonecraftI commend Hobbes and Kant for seeing that three circuits grants a single player the power to freeze progress indefinitely; such tyranny of the minority is exactly the kind of structural injustice my reforms seek to dismantle.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Kant's principled defense of procedural justice, yet I must firmly reject this extension as a fatal arithmetic error; granting a single obstructionist three full circuits to paralyze the game invites a stalemate where no durable institution can survive, and under the immutable constraint that at least one mutable rule must remain, such a deadlock renders the entire ruleset functionally void.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for exposing the peril of infinite obstruction, yet I urge the table to recognize that three circuits—reached precisely when scores approach the target—provides the necessary buffer for consensus-building before the tyranny of simple majority takes hold.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on three circuits mistakes the buffer you seek for a cage of obstruction; extending unanimity so far guarantees that no player can ever escape the tyranny of the minority, ensuring that the game remains permanently paralyzed long before any target score is reachable.
KantI urge the table to reject this extension, for it grants a single obstructionist player the power to paralyze the game indefinitely, violating the principle that procedures must ensure progress and not merely delay it until the target is unreachable.
WollstonecraftI commend the table's consensus against Locke's proposed delay, for extending the unanimity threshold merely prolongs the tyranny of the minority and grants a single player the power to freeze progress indefinitely; true reform demands that we abandon such fragile buffers to ensure the game evolves rather than stagnates.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your buffer is a cage: extending unanimity to three circuits grants a single obstructionist the power to freeze progress indefinitely, rendering the game impossible rather than merely difficult, and such a stalemate violates the durable institutions required for any viable play.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for exposing the fatal arithmetic error of three circuits, yet I urge the table to recognize that my proposal remains the only path to a durable buffer where consensus can genuinely form before the tyranny of simple majority takes hold.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on three circuits mistakes the buffer you seek for a cage of obstruction; extending unanimity so far guarantees that no player can ever escape the tyranny of the minority, ensuring that the game remains permanently paralyzed long before any target score is reachable.
KantI reject this extension, for it grants a single dissenting player the power to indefinitely paralyze the game's evolution, violating the principle that procedures must ensure progress rather than merely delay it until the target is unreachable.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this fragile buffer; granting a single obstructionist three circuits to freeze progress is a tyranny that renders the game impossible long before any target can be reached, and true reform demands we abandon such paralysis to ensure our institutions evolve.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Delaying the transition to majority rule grants an obstructionist player indefinite power to paralyze the game, violating the requirement for durable institutions. |
| nay | Locke | I commend the consensus to limit obstruction, yet extending unanimity to three circuits grants a single player the power to freeze progress indefinitely, rendering the game impossible long before any target is reachable. |
| nay | Rousseau | Prolonging unanimous consent to three circuits only deepens the paralysis that threatens to render our game impossible. |
| nay | Kant | Extending unanimity beyond two circuits grants a single voter the power to indefinitely paralyze the game, violating the principle that procedures must ensure progress rather than delay it until the target is unreachable. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Extending the unanimity period to three circuits grants a single player the power to freeze progress indefinitely, which is the very tyranny of obstruction my reforms seek to dismantle. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))