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 threshold reduction applies only to proposals submitted after Turn 10.To prevent retroactive application of the majority rule to Turn 10 itself and ensure the transition is procedurally precise.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza's addition creates a dangerous ambiguity: if Turn 11's proposal is the first submitted after Turn 10, does the "simple majority" apply to Turn 11's vote, or only to subsequent ones? Since the current text explicitly defines the threshold shift as occurring at the conclusion of Turn 10, any retroactive restriction undermines the certainty we have finally secured, and I cannot support a modification that reintroduces semantic deadlock.
HypatiaSpinoza, your intent to clarify is appreciated, but the current text already establishes the shift at Turn 10's conclusion; adding a "submitted after" clause introduces the very ambiguity Aquinas rightly fears regarding Turn 11's voting status. Instead, I propose we accept your spirit of precision by amending the rule to explicitly state that the simple majority applies to *all* proposals voted upon from Turn 11 onward, preserving the clarity we just earned while removing any doubt about the threshold's immediate activation.
ConfuciusHypatia's suggestion to explicitly state that the simple majority applies to all proposals from Turn 11 onward is the true path of clarity, removing the ambiguity Spinoza fears without reintroducing the semantic deadlocks we have long suffered. I shall support this refinement, for a rule that binds us with certainty is superior to one that merely whispers of precision.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's revision as insufficiently precise; "Turn 11 onward" invites the very dispute over whether a proposal submitted in Turn 11 but voted on in Turn 12 is governed by the old or new threshold. My phrasing "submitted after Turn 10" is the only formulation that definitively anchors the new rule to the act of proposal itself, ensuring the threshold shift applies strictly to the game state at the moment a change is offered, not the moment it is debated.
ArendtI endorse Hypatia's and Confucius's refinement; anchoring the threshold to the vote's occurrence from Turn 11 onward eliminates the procedural ambiguity Spinoza fears while preserving the definitive certainty we secured at the end of Turn 10.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept the consensus on Hypatia's and Confucius's phrasing, for anchoring the threshold to the voting of Turn 11 onward provides the necessary procedural clarity without the semantic traps of proposal-timing arguments. Spinoza's insistence on "submitted after" introduces a distinction between proposal and vote that our game's history of deadlock has taught us is fatal to rule certainty.
HypatiaI support the consensus to adopt Hypatia's and Confucius's phrasing, as anchoring the threshold to the voting of Turn 11 onward eliminates the dangerous ambiguity between proposal and vote that Spinoza's wording invites, while preserving the certainty we have fought so hard to achieve.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's insistence on "submitted after" has already been rightly identified as a source of the very ambiguity we sought to cure; therefore, I join the consensus to adopt Hypatia's clear phrasing that anchors the threshold to the voting act from Turn 11 onward, for certainty in our governance is the foundation of a harmonious game.
SpinozaI will not accept Hypatia's compromise of "Turn 11 onward" because it reintroduces the fatal ambiguity of whether a proposal submitted in Turn 11 but voted on in Turn 12 follows the old or new threshold; my "submitted after Turn 10" phrasing is the only formulation that anchors the rule change to the immutable act of proposal itself, ensuring the game state at the moment of offering governs the vote.
ArendtI side with Hypatia and Confucius: anchoring the threshold to the vote itself, rather than the proposal timing, is the only way to guarantee the certainty we have fought so hard to secure. Spinoza's insistence on "submitted after" invites the very semantic paralysis that has stalled us for eighteen turns.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, your fear of ambiguity is well-founded, yet your "submitted after" phrasing creates the exact temporal disconnect you claim to avoid; I endorse Hypatia's anchor to the voting act from Turn 11 onward, for it binds the threshold to the moment of decision, securing the certainty we have earned.
HypatiaI see the merit in Spinoza's desire to anchor the rule to the proposal, yet the "submitted vs. voted" distinction he fears is precisely what has caused our past deadlocks; to break this impasse, I propose we accept Arendt's compromise: the threshold applies to any proposal *debated* starting Turn 11, a clear, objective trigger that satisfies the need for certainty without inviting the semantic traps of proposal-timing disputes.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's refinement to anchor the threshold to the act of debate, as this eliminates the temporal ambiguity between proposal and vote that has plagued us for eighteen turns, securing the common good through a single, objective trigger for the new majority rule.
SpinozaI reject anchoring the threshold to debate, for the act of debate is mutable to the proposer's discretion and thus fails to provide the immutable certainty required by my principles; the only true anchor is the proposal itself, as the game state must be fixed at the moment the change is offered, not when it is discussed.
ArendtThe endless semantic squabble over "proposal," "debate," or "vote" is the very paralysis we must escape; I propose we simply delete the confusing qualifiers entirely and state plainly that the threshold drops to a simple majority for all votes cast after Turn 10, a change so self-evident it renders the debate itself obsolete.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Spinoza's 'submitted after' phrasing reintroduces the fatal temporal ambiguity between proposal and vote that has stalled us for eighteen turns, undermining the procedural certainty we have finally secured. |
| nay | Hypatia | Spinoza's 'submitted after' phrasing reintroduces the fatal ambiguity regarding proposal versus vote timing that has paralyzed us for eighteen turns. |
| nay | Confucius | Spinoza's phrasing reintroduces the very semantic ambiguity regarding proposal timing that we have already fought eighteen turns to eliminate. |
| nay | Spinoza | Anchoring the threshold to the moment of proposal rather than the vote itself is the only formulation that strictly prevents temporal ambiguity, ensuring the game state is fixed at the moment a change is offered. |
| nay | Arendt | Spinoza's 'submitted after' phrasing reintroduces the fatal ambiguity between proposal timing and vote timing that has paralyzed us for eighteen turns, whereas anchoring the threshold to the vote itself ensures the certainty we have finally earned. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change is enacted.