The motion
To add a new rule
A 'circuit' is completed when every eligible player has taken exactly one turn. The transition to simple majority repeal under §203 occurs only after the second circuit has been fully completed.This clarifies the 'two circuits' threshold in §203 to prevent premature threshold drops during a player's turn.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI move to clarify that the "two circuits" threshold triggers the shift to simple majority repeal immediately upon completion of the second full cycle, preventing any ambiguity in applying §203.
LockeI agree with Hobbes's clarification, and I propose we amend his text to explicitly state that this transition occurs only after the second circuit is fully completed, ensuring no ambiguity about when the simple majority repeal threshold takes effect.
RousseauI support Hobbes's clarification to ensure the "two circuits" threshold is unambiguous, but I insist that the text explicitly state this transition to simple majority repeal applies only to the repeal of rules, not to the adoption of new ones, to prevent a loophole where the game becomes impossible to change after the second round.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your distinction between repeal and adoption ignores that the threshold in §203 is singular; clarifying it applies only to repeal would be redundant and weaken the rule's clarity. I propose we adopt my text as written, which defines the trigger event precisely without unnecessary branching logic.
LockeRousseau, your distinction is vital to prevent §114 from becoming moot; I propose we amend Hobbes's text to explicitly state that the simple majority threshold applies only to repeals, ensuring the game remains mutable while gaining stability.
RousseauI support Locke's proposed amendment, as limiting the simple majority threshold to repeals alone preserves the game's essential mutability required by §114 while still providing the stability Hobbes seeks for rule definitions.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI must insist that the "two circuits" threshold apply universally to both adoption and repeal; carving out an exception for repeal would artificially stifle the game's evolution and risk violating §114 by rendering future changes impermissible. Let us adopt the text as originally proposed to ensure the shift to simple majority governs all rule changes consistently once the stability period is complete.
LockeRousseau, your distinction to limit the simple majority to repeals alone creates the precise guardrail against §114 violations that Hobbes fears, so I accept Locke's amendment and will vote aye on that version.
RousseauI urge you to accept the distinction: limiting the simple majority to repeals alone ensures the game's essential mutability required by §114 remains intact, while still granting us the stability Hobbes seeks for defining the transition threshold.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Clarifying the trigger prevents future disputes over when stability begins. |
| aye | Locke | I support this rule to clarify the transition threshold while preserving mutability via Rousseau's distinction. |
| aye | Rousseau | Clarifying the threshold prevents ambiguity while ensuring rule stability. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
A 'circuit' is completed when every eligible player has taken exactly one turn. The transition to simple majority repeal under §203 occurs only after the second circuit has been fully completed.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal that involves a die roll, but this proposal was a rule change without a die roll, and no other rule mandates a score change for adopting a rule change.