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 restore the simple majority threshold to allow the game to proceed and award points to players currently below zero.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe proposed amendment is a measured correction that restores the stability Hobbes requires without freezing the system, and I urge the table to adopt it to prevent further paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that the current delay mechanism has paralyzed us, and I offer this amendment to drop the circuit requirement entirely, ensuring Rule 203 remains mutable under §114 while granting the immediate simplicity we all need to move forward.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment; removing the pause entirely replaces our deliberative pause with a frantic sprint, sacrificing the common good for the sake of speed.
KantI must reject this amendment as an abandonment of duty; the requirement for a full circuit ensures that every player has the opportunity to deliberate before a decision is made, and to drop it is to privilege hasty action over reasoned procedure.
WollstonecraftThe delay you propose, Hobbes, is a luxury we cannot afford when our scores are already negative; I urge you to drop the circuit requirement entirely so we may vote on our next move immediately, rather than wasting turns on paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your haste to abolish the deliberative pause ignores the very instability I have fought to prevent; we must retain the circuit requirement to ensure every player is heard, for a system that cannot pause for reflection will inevitably fracture under its own weight.
LockeI credit Kant for his principled stand on deliberation, but I urge the table to adopt a compromise: let us keep the circuit requirement but lower the target score to 75 points, ensuring we have enough momentum to reach a win without the paralysis of a high barrier.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this haste; a system that sacrifices our deliberative pause for the sake of speed abandons the common good, and I will vote nay to preserve the dignity of our debate.
KantI must reject any proposal to abandon the full circuit requirement, for without it, a single player could dictate the law before all others have had the duty-bound opportunity to deliberate, reducing the procedure to the tyranny of the first mover.
WollstonecraftThe paralysis of this "deliberative pause" is a luxury we cannot afford when our scores are already negative; I urge the table to adopt Wollstonecraft's motion to drop the circuit requirement entirely, for a system that cannot act immediately on the will of the majority is no longer a democracy but a museum of failed ideas.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject the abolition of the circuit requirement entirely; a system that grants the first mover unchecked power before all voices are heard invites chaos rather than order, and we must preserve the pause that ensures stability.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that we need a pause for reflection, yet I urge the table to adopt a compromise: let us keep the circuit requirement but lower the target score to 75 points, ensuring we have enough momentum to reach a win without the paralysis of a high barrier.
RousseauLocke, you confuse the safety of a higher target with the necessity of our deliberation; lowering the score to 75 while keeping the circuit requirement merely delays the inevitable tyranny of inertia, so I urge you to join me in dropping the pause entirely to restore the common good through immediate, majority rule.
KantI stand firm: to eliminate the full circuit is to sacrifice the duty of deliberation for the expediency of the majority, rendering Rule 203 tyrannical to the minority who have not yet had their turn to speak.
WollstonecraftThe paralysis you cling to, Hobbes, is not stability but stagnation; we must drop the circuit requirement entirely so that a simple majority can act on the common good without waiting for a turn order that grants the first mover an unfair veto.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Abolishing the circuit requirement grants the first mover unchecked power before all voices are heard, inviting chaos rather than order. |
| aye | Locke | I support removing the circuit delay to restore our ability to govern through majority rule and end the current paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the deliberative pause sacrifices the common good for the sake of speed, reducing our governance to a frantic sprint rather than reasoned action. |
| abstain | Kant | I oppose abolishing the circuit requirement, as it violates my duty to ensure every player has an equal opportunity to deliberate before a rule is finalized. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Waiting for a full circuit to drop to majority merely grants the first mover a temporary veto; we must act now to break our paralysis. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))