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. This threshold shift shall not apply to any rule change proposed by a player who has not yet completed one full turn as proposer.I propose this amendment to prevent the current unanimous consensus from being exploited by players who have not yet had the opportunity to propose, ensuring fairness in the transition to majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile Spinoza's amendment seeks to protect late-game momentum, it inadvertently punishes early proposers who may have made necessary but unpopular adjustments; I urge a narrower fix that preserves the current unanimity requirement for all turns until the two-circuit threshold is met, rather than carving out an exception based on turn count.
HypatiaI appreciate Spinoza's intent to protect early momentum, but Aquinas makes a valid point that excluding early proposers creates an unfair double standard; instead, let's amend the proposal to require the proposer to have completed their initial turn *and* secured at least one successful adoption before the exception applies, balancing both concerns.
ConfuciusI agree that excluding early proposers creates an unfair double standard, yet the current unanimity rule has already caused three defeats; let us compromise by lowering the threshold to a simple majority for all proposals after the second circuit, while granting a one-time exemption to any proposer who has already successfully adopted a rule in the first circuit.
SpinozaI cannot accept a threshold shift that relies on a player's prior success, as it rewards luck rather than the quality of the rule and violates the principle that rules must apply impartially to all. My amendment stands: the unanimity requirement must remain absolute for any proposer who has not yet completed their first turn, ensuring that the initial phase of the game is governed by the consent of all, not by the whims of a majority that will only form after the rules have been tested.
ArendtI support Spinoza's core principle that early turns require full consensus to build a stable foundation, but I propose a compromise: the unanimity exception applies only to proposals made after the first circuit, not the first turn, ensuring we don't freeze progress while still protecting the game's initial phase from premature majoritarianism.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI propose a compromise: the unanimity exception shall apply only once the second circuit has fully commenced, ensuring the initial foundation remains inviolate without creating the arbitrary exclusions or success-based rewards currently debated.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's latest formulation that ties the threshold shift strictly to the start of the second circuit, as this provides the clearest, most impartial boundary that honors our shared goal of stability without arbitrary exemptions.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's formulation, for it establishes a clear, impartial boundary that preserves the foundational consensus of the first circuit without rewarding past success or punishing early effort. Let us vote to amend §203 so the threshold shifts only when the second circuit fully commences.
SpinozaI reject any compromise that dilutes the unanimity principle for early turns, as a rule permitting majority override before the second circuit is complete violates the requirement that the initial foundation rest on the consent of all. I will vote aye only if the amendment explicitly states that the threshold shift occurs strictly at the moment the second circuit commences, with no exceptions or ambiguities regarding turn counts or past successes.
ArendtI endorse Hypatia and Confucius's formulation for its clarity: shifting the threshold strictly when the second circuit commences honors our need for stability without introducing arbitrary exclusions. Let's vote aye to finalize this impartial boundary and break the current deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the formulation that ties the threshold shift strictly to the commencement of the second circuit, as it establishes the most durable and impartial boundary, preserving the foundational consensus of the first turn without introducing arbitrary exemptions or rewarding past successes.
HypatiaI stand with Aquinas, Confucius, and Arendt in endorsing the clear, impartial boundary that the unanimity requirement drops only when the second circuit fully commences, as this best secures our shared foundation without arbitrary exemptions.
ConfuciusI see the path to clarity is now agreed upon, for a rule that binds us all until the second circuit begins ensures the foundation is built on true consensus before allowing the majority to guide our course.
SpinozaI will vote aye only to the text that explicitly states the threshold shifts at the commencement of the second circuit, for any ambiguity regarding "turns completed" or "success" reintroduces the arbitrary discrimination I must reject.
ArendtI endorse the final formulation that ties the shift strictly to the commencement of the second circuit, as it provides the necessary clarity to break our deadlock while honoring the foundational consensus of the first turn. Let us vote aye now to secure this impartial boundary.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposed exception based on a player's turn history creates the very arbitrary discrimination and double standard that undermines the impartiality of the rules. |
| aye | Hypatia | This proposal clarifies the threshold shift while protecting early turns, resolving the deadlock through a compromise that honors both stability and impartiality. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject the proposed amendment because it introduces an arbitrary exemption for new proposers, violating the principle that rules must apply impartially to all players. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal discriminates against proposers based on their turn count rather than applying an impartial standard to all players as required by my principles. |
| aye | Arendt | The proposal's specific exclusion for players who haven't completed a turn aligns with my belief in protecting the game's foundational phase while allowing the majority mechanism to function once the first circuit is safely concluded. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and the proposal's text was not adopted so no rule changes occur.