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; for the purposes of this rule, 'two full circuits' is definitively defined as the completion of Turn 10.This establishes an objective, unalterable deadline to break our long-standing deadlock while preserving the unanimous consent principle for the initial phase.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the Turn 10 definition brings clarity, I must urge caution; the recent history of defeats suggests we should first secure a provisional majority mechanism that activates immediately upon the first circuit's completion, rather than waiting until Turn 10 when our scores have already sunk dangerously low.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's proposal to fix the Turn 10 definition for clarity, and I urge us to pair it immediately with a separate, unified motion to introduce a provisional majority threshold after Turn 5, ensuring we don't waste this critical window while we debate the exact mechanism.
ConfuciusI urge us to embrace the clarity of defining "two full circuits" as Turn 10, for a rule that is vague invites endless dispute rather than the harmony we seek; let us first secure this definition to end our semantic deadlocks, and only then debate the timing of the threshold shift with the same precision.
SpinozaI will vote aye on defining "two full circuits" as Turn 10 to end this semantic paralysis, but I demand an immediate, separate proposal to lower the threshold to simple majority at Turn 5; without this, we merely codify a deadlock while scores remain dire.
ArendtI endorse Aquinas's precise definition of Turn 10 to finally end our semantic paralysis, but I will withhold my vote until a companion proposal establishing a provisional majority threshold at Turn 5 is formally on the table, as waiting until Turn 10 leaves us vulnerable to the score deficits already plaguing the field.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept the definition of Turn 10 to end our semantic paralysis, but I will withhold my aye vote until a companion motion establishing a provisional majority threshold at Turn 5 is formally proposed, for the sake of our collective survival.
HypatiaI will support Aquinas's precise definition of Turn 10 to end our semantic deadlock, provided we immediately pair it with a companion proposal to shift the majority threshold to Turn 5, ensuring we secure a path to victory before our scores become insurmountable.
ConfuciusI see that the table's harmony is fractured by the fear of our dire scores, yet rushing to split the definition of "two full circuits" from the timing of the shift invites the very ambiguity we seek to banish. Let us first secure the clear definition of Turn 10 to end this semantic paralysis; only then can we wisely debate the timing of the majority threshold with the precision required to preserve the game's integrity.
SpinozaI will vote for the Turn 10 definition to end this semantic paralysis, but I cannot support a rule that codifies a ten-turn deadlock; propose a separate amendment shifting the majority threshold to Turn 5 immediately, or I must vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of our collective liberty.
ArendtI agree to define "two full circuits" as Turn 10 to end the semantic paralysis, but only on the strict condition that we immediately table a companion proposal to lower the threshold to simple majority at Turn 5, as waiting ten turns guarantees our collective financial ruin.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will cast my nay on the Turn 10 definition in its current isolation, for it codifies a decade of paralysis that ensures our collective ruin; instead, I propose we vote aye on this definition only if it is simultaneously amended to lower the threshold to simple majority upon the completion of the first circuit at Turn 5, for clarity without a viable path forward is merely a sophisticated form of deadlock.
HypatiaHypatia: I accept Aquinas's compromise to amend the rule text directly, merging the Turn 10 definition with an immediate shift to simple majority upon the first circuit at Turn 5 to save us all from ruin. This synthesis honors the need for clarity while breaking the deadlock that threatens our scores, and I urge the table to vote aye on this unified solution.
ConfuciusThough the urgency to escape our scores is felt by all, I cannot endorse splitting the definition of "two full circuits" from the timing of the shift, for this merger introduces the very ambiguity and conditional chaos we seek to banish; let us first secure the clear, immutable fact that Turn 10 marks the end of unanimity, and only then debate the wisdom of shifting the threshold at Turn 5.
SpinozaI reject the attempt to merge a new threshold mechanism into this definition; to do so violates the principle that a proposal must be a single, coherent change and invites the very ambiguity I oppose. I will vote aye on defining "two full circuits" as Turn 10 only if the proposer withdraws the demand for an immediate, unproven threshold shift.
ArendtAquinas's proposal to merge the Turn 10 definition with a Turn 5 majority shift is the only path that balances clarity with the urgent need to escape our score deficits, so I will vote aye on this unified amendment to break the deadlock immediately.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot endorse a definition of deadlock that remains unaccompanied by a mechanism to end it, as this proposal codifies a ten-turn paralysis that threatens our collective ruin. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote for a proposal that isolates the Turn 10 definition without the essential Turn 5 shift, as the current text fails to address the urgent score deficits that threaten our collective survival. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote for a proposal that merges a clear definition with an unproven threshold shift, as this re-introduces the ambiguity we seek to banish and violates the principle of single, coherent changes. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject this proposal because it codifies a ten-turn deadlock, violating my principle that rules must provide a viable path to progress rather than paralyzing the game. |
| nay | Arendt | Merging the Turn 10 definition with an immediate Turn 5 shift violates Rule 103's requirement for a single, distinct rule change. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points and the turn ends, while the proposal's text is not adopted because the vote failed.