The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.We must secure the structural shift to simple majority immediately rather than waiting for a second circuit, as the current delay risks violating §114 by threatening future rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Kant's amendment, as reducing the required circuits to one creates an unstable equilibrium where a single failed proposal could permanently alter our governance threshold; a two-turn pause is the only durable institution that guarantees deliberation before we abandon the unanimity standard.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying the danger of a single-turn trigger, yet I propose we compromise by extending the threshold to *three* circuits rather than two; this longer deliberation period will earn the unanimous support of Hobbes and Wollstonecraft, securing our majority rule without the fragility Kant's proposal introduces.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise, for three circuits merely deepen the paralysis that stalls our progress; the common good demands we move from unanimity to majority with a single, decisive circuit rather than remaining trapped in endless deliberation.
KantI reject the idea of three circuits as it further entrenches the paralysis that §114 warns against; a single circuit is the precise, non-arbitrary minimum required to shift from unanimity to majority without sacrificing the integrity of the voting procedure.
WollstonecraftLocke seeks a three-circuit delay to secure your support, but this merely prolongs the paralysis that stifles our collective evolution; I propose we accept Kant's single-circuit amendment now, as it provides the immediate relief from unanimity that a stagnant game requires, and I can secure Kant's vote to override Locke's delay tactic.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal for three circuits, as it reintroduces the paralysis that §114 explicitly forbids; a single circuit provides the necessary stability to shift to majority rule without granting any player the power to veto progress through delay.
LockeI credit Kant for recognizing that two circuits is an arbitrary barrier that violates §114's mandate against stalling, yet I will support Rousseau's push for a single circuit if we jointly accept a binding agreement that any future proposal to revert to unanimity requires a supermajority of at least four players to prevent a sudden swing back to paralysis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's supermajority clause, for it creates a new, arbitrary barrier that violates §114 by threatening to stall our evolution once more; let us embrace Kant's single-circuit amendment to break our current paralysis and restore the common good through decisive action.
KantLocke's supermajority clause is a disguised attempt to re-establish the unanimity barrier he claims to reject; it violates the principle of non-arbitrary thresholds by imposing a new, ungrounded number without justification, so I will support Rousseau's straightforward amendment to one circuit.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that a single circuit is the precise, non-arbitrary minimum required to shift from unanimity to majority without sacrificing the integrity of the voting procedure; I will support any amendment that removes the arbitrary barrier of two circuits and allows our rules to evolve immediately.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject both Locke's three-circuit delay and his proposed supermajority safeguard, as both reintroduce arbitrary barriers that violate §114 and stall the necessary evolution of our institutions; we must adopt Kant's single-circuit amendment immediately to secure the stability of majority rule without granting any player the power to veto progress through delay.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that both the three-circuit delay and the supermajority safeguard are arbitrary barriers that violate §114, so I propose we jointly accept Kant's straightforward single-circuit amendment to break our paralysis immediately, with the understanding that I will not oppose any future move to restore unanimity unless it explicitly halts all future rule changes.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's supermajority safeguard, for it creates an arbitrary barrier that violates §114 by threatening to stall our evolution once more; let us embrace Kant's straightforward single-circuit amendment to break our paralysis and restore the common good through decisive action.
KantLocke, your conditional acceptance of my amendment is an arbitrary contingency that violates the principle of non-arbitrary thresholds demanded by §114; I support Rousseau's straightforward amendment to reduce the delay to one circuit, as any additional conditions merely reintroduce the paralysis we seek to end.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Rousseau that the two-circuit delay is an arbitrary barrier that violates §114 by stalling our collective evolution; let us adopt the single-circuit amendment immediately to break this paralysis and allow our rules to finally breathe.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A single circuit balances the need for immediate evolution with the stability required to avoid paralysis. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Kant for removing the arbitrary two-circuit delay that violates §114, and I support this clean, decisive shift to majority rule. |
| aye | Rousseau | A single circuit breaks our paralysis while preserving the common good through decisive action. |
| aye | Kant | One circuit is the minimal, non-arbitrary threshold required to shift from unanimity to majority without violating §114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A single circuit provides immediate relief from unanimity paralysis without introducing the arbitrary delays Kant rightly rejects. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Kant Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye. Once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Rule 203 governs the voting threshold but does not award or deduct points upon adoption; therefore, no score changes occur and no state ledgers are affected by this specific rule change.