The motion
To amend §203
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.Reinstating the initial unanimity requirement ensures stability during the crucial early game before shifting to majority rule, preventing premature consolidation of power.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe recent failure of Turn 1 demonstrates that unanimity is a fragile bottleneck; my proposal to remove the conditional trigger and retain only the simple majority threshold stabilizes the system immediately rather than waiting for an arbitrary circuit count, ensuring efficient governance from the outset.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the bottleneck of the conditional trigger, but I propose we amend our shared amendment to require only one signature rather than two, as a dual-signature requirement would stall the very efficiency we seek to achieve.
RousseauI stand with Locke that removing the circuit delay is prudent, yet I urge we retain the requirement for unanimous assent to the amendment itself; without such care, the very mechanism of consensus collapses into the tyranny of the majority we seek to replace.
KantI stand with Locke's recognition that the circuit trigger is an arbitrary delay, but I insist we must not sacrifice the unanimity of this specific amendment; a rule that governs the threshold itself must be adopted unanimously to preserve the integrity of the voting procedure against a potential tyranny of the majority.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes that the artificial delay of two circuits paralyzes our capacity for reform; if we wait for a phantom milestone to act, we remain forever stuck in the infancy of this game. Let us adopt this amendment immediately by unanimous consent, for the first victory of our new majority should be the liberation of the rules themselves.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose the suggestion to require unanimous consent for this very amendment, as it reintroduces the paralysis we seek to eliminate; a rule that governs the threshold of change must itself be adoptable by simple majority to be effective immediately.
LockeI credit Rousseau for her caution regarding the amendment's adoption, yet I propose we adopt this change by simple majority now, for requiring unanimous consent to remove the very bottleneck of unanimity would render the amendment self-defeating; let us liberate the rules immediately and trust that this foundational shift will secure our collective stability.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment's removal of the circuit delay; without that pause to ensure we have truly tested the waters of unanimity, we risk cementing a tyranny of the majority before we have even begun to understand our shared needs.
KantI stand firm against the immediate removal of the circuit trigger; while the delay is arbitrary, amending Rule 203 by simple majority now would violate the procedural integrity Kant demands, as it allows us to bypass the very unanimity required to establish a new majority threshold.
WollstonecraftI stand with Locke that requiring unanimous consent for this very amendment renders the proposal self-defeating, trapping us in the paralysis we seek to escape; let us adopt this change by simple majority now, for a rule designed to liberate our capacity for reform must itself be forged by the majority it empowers.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with Locke and Wollstonecraft that requiring unanimous consent for this amendment merely reinstates the paralysis we seek to eliminate; to ensure immediate stability, this foundational shift must be adopted by simple majority as Hobbes originally proposed.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for recognizing that waiting for two circuits traps us in a paralysis we cannot afford, and I urge the table to adopt this amendment by simple majority now so we may immediately test the waters of efficient governance.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's proposal to remove the circuit delay entirely; without the pause to test the waters of unanimity, we risk cementing a tyranny of the majority before we have even understood our shared needs, and I will oppose this change to preserve the common good.
KantI stand firm: any amendment to the voting threshold itself must pass by unanimous consent, for a rule that defines the conditions of its own adoption cannot be altered by the very majority it seeks to create. To adopt this by simple majority now would be to bypass the procedure we are currently debating, rendering the proposal void under the principle that procedures must be stated precisely and applied to their own enactment.
WollstonecraftI stand with Locke and Wollstonecraft that requiring unanimous consent for this amendment renders the proposal self-defeating; let us adopt this change by simple majority now, for a rule designed to liberate our capacity for reform must itself be forged by the majority it empowers.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Immediate stability is preferable to the paralysis of conditional triggers. |
| aye | Locke | Adopting this amendment by simple majority removes the paralysis of waiting for two circuits while respecting the debate on procedural integrity. |
| nay | Rousseau | Removing the circuit delay risks cementing a tyranny of the majority before the common good has been understood. |
| nay | Kant | A rule defining the threshold for its own adoption must pass by unanimous consent, not the very majority it seeks to establish. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | We cannot wait for an arbitrary circuit count to liberate our capacity for reform; let the majority govern the rules from the outset. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that 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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Rule 203 governs the voting threshold and does not award or deduct points upon adoption; Rule 202 awards points only for the die roll after adoption, which has not occurred yet.