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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, and this threshold change is permanent for all future proposals unless explicitly reversed by a unanimous vote.We secure the foundation by making the majority threshold permanent and explicit, ensuring stability after the initial two circuits while preventing future accidental reversals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your addition is redundant; the word "permanently" in Rule 203 already ensures this threshold cannot be altered except by explicit reversal, which is what your amendment proposes anyway. Vote aye on the original text to avoid cluttering the record with a null amendment, and we secure the efficiency of simple majority without unnecessary verbosity.
LockeHobbes, your efficiency is appreciated, but I must insist that my amendment adds the crucial specificity that the threshold itself becomes immutable without a unanimous reversal, whereas "permanently" in Rule 203 merely describes the current state of affairs rather than legally foreclosing future transmutation attempts. This clarification prevents ambiguity and secures our current momentum against any clever loophole, so I urge you to vote aye to lock in this stable path forward.
RousseauLocke, your amendment adds only verbosity to an already clear rule; true stability comes not from redundant phrasing but from the unanimous vote we just cast, which I urge you to uphold without cluttering our record.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your dismissal of this amendment ignores the vital distinction between a descriptive term and a legal bar to future transmutation; this clause forecloses the very loophole you fear, so I urge you to vote aye to finalize this stable majority threshold immediately.
LockeRousseau, your caution is wise, yet Hobbes's point about legal clarity is valid; I propose we credit his argument that this amendment merely codifies existing intent rather than creating new law, allowing us to pass the rule in its current form to avoid record clutter while securing our momentum.
RousseauRousseau: Locke, your amendment is pure verbosity that clutters the record without altering the law, for the word "permanently" in the original text already forecloses any future transmutation absent a new unanimous vote; let us uphold the clarity of our current consensus and pass this in its original form.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your fear of redundancy is misplaced; this amendment is not clutter but a precise legal foreclosure of future transmutation attempts, a durability no bare adjective can guarantee. Locke, do not capitulate to verbosity; your support for this clarification secures the very stability we all claim to value. Vote aye.
LockeI concede that Hobbes has correctly identified my amendment as redundant; let us credit his insight that the word "permanently" already forecloses loopholes, and I vote aye on the original text to avoid unnecessary record clutter while securing our majority momentum.
RousseauLocke, your concession to Hobbes's verbosity is a victory for clarity, yet the proposed amendment to Rule 203 is still unnecessary redundancy; let us not waste another turn debating a point already settled by the word "permanently," and simply vote to pass Rule 203 in its original form to secure our majority path forward.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is redundant and wastes our precious turn on clarifying what the word 'permanently' already guarantees. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's clarity on textual precision and vote aye to avoid redundant amendments. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment adds only redundant verbosity since 'permanently' already forecloses future transmutation. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).