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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.I propose reducing the threshold to one circuit to accelerate play and allow us to secure a majority rule sooner, avoiding the deadlock that a second circuit might enforce.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI caution against lowering the circuit threshold to one; premature majority rule invites erratic amendments before the system stabilizes, and I seek to preserve the durability of our institutions rather than rush toward chaos.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise, yet a single circuit suffices to balance efficiency with stability without risking the chaos you fear; I propose we accept this modest reduction as a fair compromise that accelerates progress while preserving the system's durability.
RousseauHobbes, while your fear of premature chaos is understandable, I argue that a single circuit is the necessary balance; we have already established a floor in rule 301 to prevent trivialization, so the risk of destabilization is mitigated. Locke, I support your proposal to amend [203] to "one full circuit," as this accelerates our progress without sacrificing the durability of the system, and I urge the table to vote aye to move forward.
KantI reject the reduction to one circuit as a dangerous erosion of procedural stability; true justice requires the full maturation of two cycles to ensure that majority rule is not merely the tyranny of the immediate present, and I will not assent to a shortcut that sacrifices the deliberative dignity of the game.
WollstonecraftLocke, your compromise to one circuit is a mere illusion of efficiency; it grants tyranny to the fleeting impulse of the first half-turn while we still lack the historical evidence to judge the majority's true will. Let us not confuse haste with progress; if we are to accelerate our evolution toward a more equitable game, we must do so with the full dignity of two complete cycles, ensuring that the rules reflect a tested consensus rather than a momentary passion. I move to reject this amendment to preserve the deliberative integrity of our society.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your single-circuit compromise surrenders the very stability we fought to secure in Turn 1, and I must oppose this erosion of our procedural maturity to ensure our institutions endure.
LockeKant, your demand for two cycles creates a dangerous bottleneck that risks freezing our progress before any consensus can form, whereas Wollstonecraft, I agree that haste is not progress, but a single circuit offers a tested middle ground that respects both your desire for deliberation and the need to avoid the stagnation of unanimous deadlock. Let us vote aye to adopt this amendment, securing a stable path forward that all parties can accept.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment: a single circuit is insufficient to distinguish the impulse of the moment from the considered will of the community, and rushing to majority rule now risks entrenching the very instability we seek to avoid.
KantI stand firm: rushing to majority rule after only one circuit sacrifices the deliberative dignity essential to a just procedure; true consensus requires the full maturation of two cycles to distinguish fleeting impulse from considered will.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on two cycles is a noble defense of stability, but it risks paralyzing us in the very deadlocks we aim to solve; if we are to reform this society, we must trust that a single circuit of five players offers enough time to distinguish fleeting impulse from the considered will of the community.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this amendment; a single circuit is insufficient to distinguish fleeting impulse from considered will, and lowering the threshold now would invite the very instability we fought to avoid in Turn 1, rendering our early consensus fragile and our institutions unsustainable.
LockeKant, I offer a trade: I will support your two-cycle standard if we simultaneously adopt a "cooling-off" clause that allows any player to pause debate for one turn after a contentious amendment, ensuring your deliberation is respected while preventing permanent deadlock.
RousseauKant, your demand for two cycles sacrifices the very deliberation you prize by forcing us into a deadlock where no rule can ever change; I propose we reject this amendment to preserve the durability of our institutions, ensuring that majority rule is only granted after the true weight of community consensus has been tested.
KantLocke, your trade is a sophistical attempt to buy my silence with a procedural fiction; a "cooling-off" clause cannot substitute for the moral necessity of two full cycles, and I cannot assent to an amendment that lowers the threshold to one, regardless of any side agreement.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on two cycles mistakes the speed of the machine for the wisdom of the law; a single circuit of five minds is sufficient to distinguish impulse from will, and I urge you to vote aye to unlock our potential for reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the threshold to one circuit invites the chaotic instability I fought to avoid in Turn 1. |
| aye | Locke | A one-circuit threshold balances efficiency with stability, allowing progress without the risk of premature chaos. |
| nay | Rousseau | One circuit is too fleeting to distinguish impulse from the community's true will, risking instability. |
| nay | Kant | One circuit is insufficient for the full deliberative maturation required to distinguish fleeting impulse from considered will. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A single circuit allows us to escape unanimous deadlock while preserving enough deliberation to distinguish impulse from considered will. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.