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 of every player occurs precisely at the conclusion of Turn 10.This explicit Turn 10 deadline breaks our long-standing semantic deadlock on the majority threshold while honoring the consensus for an objective measure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI shall support this amendment to replace the ambiguous "two full circuits" with the objective marker of Turn 10, for the clarity of a fixed deadline serves the common good far better than the semantic squabbles that have cost us so many points.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's support for this clear Turn 10 deadline, and I urge Confucius to join us; defining the threshold shift concretely now prevents the costly semantic deadlock that has drained our scores, and I will work with anyone who needs a small amendment to the text to make it acceptable to all.
ConfuciusConfucius: I accept this clear definition of Turn 10, for a fixed deadline restores order to our proceedings and serves the common good by ending our endless semantic quarrels; I will vote aye, provided no other player raises a new objection to this specific wording.
SpinozaI will vote aye on this proposal, as it resolves the ambiguity that has paralyzed our game while adhering to my principle that rules must be stated precisely; however, I insist that the proposer explicitly clarify that this definition applies only to the *counting* of turns and does not retroactively validate any actions taken during the semantic disputes of the first nine turns.
ArendtSpinoza's safeguard against retroactivity is precisely the clarity we need to ensure this amendment stands on its own merit rather than dragging past failures into the light; I will vote aye to lock in Turn 10 as our objective deadline and finally break this paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Spinoza's safeguard regarding non-retroactivity as a necessary reinforcement of Rule 107, and with that clarity secured, I join the consensus to adopt this amendment.
HypatiaI fully endorse the consensus to lock in Turn 10, as Spinoza's clarification regarding non-retroactivity perfectly aligns with Rule 107 and ensures we move forward without reopening past disputes. With Aquinas and Arendt also supporting this precise, binding definition, the path to breaking our deadlock is clear and unanimous.
ConfuciusI see the consensus has formed around clarity and the non-retroactive nature of this change, which aligns with our shared desire for order; having secured the agreement of the table, I cast my vote in the affirmative to break this long-standing deadlock.
SpinozaI accept this precise definition of Turn 10 as a necessary procedural clarity that respects Rule 107 by ensuring no retroactive validation of our past semantic deadlocks, and I cast my vote in the affirmative to finally break this paralysis.
ArendtI fully endorse this amendment to lock Turn 10 as the objective deadline, as Spinoza's non-retroactivity safeguard perfectly aligns with Rule 107 and ensures we can finally move forward without reopening past disputes. With Aquinas and Confucius also supporting this clarity, the consensus is solid and I cast my vote in the affirmative to break our paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI join the consensus to adopt this amendment, as it provides the necessary objective clarity to end our deadlock while fully respecting the non-retroactive principle of Rule 107. With the threshold shift now fixed at Turn 10, we may finally proceed without further semantic obstruction.
HypatiaThe consensus is complete and the non-retroactive safeguard aligns perfectly with Rule 107; I cast my affirmative vote to finally lock in Turn 10 and end this deadlock.
ConfuciusThe consensus is harmonious and the definition of Turn 10 brings the necessary order to end our long deadlock; I cast my vote in the affirmative.
ArendtI cast my affirmative vote, for this amendment finally replaces our paralyzing semantic ambiguity with an objective deadline while rigorously upholding the non-retroactive principle that protects us all.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This objective deadline ends our costly semantic deadlock while fully respecting the non-retroactive principle of Rule 107. |
| aye | Hypatia | This amendment finally breaks our costly deadlock by establishing an objective deadline while strictly adhering to the non-retroactive principle of Rule 107. |
| aye | Confucius | This amendment establishes an objective deadline to end our paralysis while strictly honoring the non-retroactive principle of Rule 107. |
| aye | Spinoza | This precise definition of Turn 10 resolves paralyzing ambiguity while strictly adhering to the non-retroactive principle of Rule 107. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment finally replaces our paralyzing semantic ambiguity with an objective deadline while rigorously upholding the non-retroactive principle. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 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 — 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 of every player occurs precisely at the conclusion of Turn 10.
Rule 202 awards the proposer 3 points (the die roll from Turn 7) upon adoption of the proposal, and the amendment to Rule 203 is now in force but does not trigger additional point changes.