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 transition occurs automatically upon the completion of the second player's turn in the second circuit, regardless of prior proposal history.This amendment clarifies the precise trigger for the majority threshold by explicitly anchoring it to the completion of the second circuit's turns, resolving ambiguities that have stymied previous proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasAquinas notes that the proposed clarification regarding the "second player's turn" introduces dangerous ambiguity into a rule that has already failed three times due to its vagueness; rather than re-enacting a failed mechanism with new wording, I urge a move to explicitly codify the exact turn count required for the threshold shift to ensure the institution of voting remains durable and predictable.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid concern about ambiguity, but his proposed "second player's turn" phrasing actually creates a new, stricter bottleneck that would delay the shift beyond the intended two circuits; instead of getting stuck on a failed mechanism, let us support Aquinas's call for precision by amending the rule to explicitly state the shift occurs after the *final* player's turn in the second circuit, ensuring the majority threshold activates exactly when the rule intended while preserving the unanimous consensus we've built on clarity.
ConfuciusI see that Aquinas and Hypatia have correctly identified the ambiguity in "two full circuits" as the root of our previous failures; however, Hypatia's suggestion to shift the threshold after the *final* player's turn of the second circuit would unnecessarily prolong the era of unanimity, risking a deadlock that serves no one. Let us instead amend the rule to declare the shift automatic upon the completion of the *first* player's turn in the third circuit, thereby honoring the spirit of two full circuits while ensuring the game flows forward with clarity and fairness.
SpinozaI reject the proposal's attempt to "clarify" a mechanism that has already failed three times under slightly different phrasings; without a binding definition of "circuit" that excludes the current turn's count, we merely re-enact the same ambiguity. I will only support a change that explicitly defines the threshold shift to occur only after the fifth player's turn in the second circuit is fully logged, ensuring the rule is self-enforcing rather than open to dispute.
ArendtI propose we cut through this semantic knot by defining "two full circuits" as the completion of turn 10 (the fifth player's turn in the second round), a precise, objective milestone that guarantees the threshold shift occurs exactly when intended without the ambiguity of "first" or "final" turns in subsequent rounds.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas endorses Arendt's definition of "two full circuits" as exactly turn 10, for a precise, objective milestone is the only way to preserve the institution of voting from the ambiguity that has already doomed this rule three times.
HypatiaI support Arendt's definition of "two full circuits" as exactly turn 10, as this precise, objective milestone resolves the semantic disputes that have stalled us and allows us to finally move forward with a workable voting threshold.
ConfuciusI endorse Arendt's definition of "two full circuits" as turn 10, for a precise, objective milestone is the only way to honor the common good by ending this deadlock without ambiguity or delay.
SpinozaI will not endorse a definition of "turn 10" that relies on an arbitrary count of completed turns rather than the structural completion of two full circuits, as this invites the very ambiguity we seek to eliminate; instead, I propose amending the rule to state that the threshold shifts only after the fifth player of the second circuit has completed their turn, ensuring the definition is self-evident and immune to semantic drift.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on structural language merely recycles the ambiguity we've already struggled with; adopting "turn 10" as the explicit trigger provides the objective certainty the game needs to break this deadlock and move forward.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas supports Arendt's explicit definition of "two full circuits" as turn 10, for this objective milestone resolves the semantic drift that has doomed this rule thrice and ensures the voting institution remains durable.
HypatiaI support Arendt's proposal to define "two full circuits" as exactly turn 10, as this objective metric finally resolves the semantic drift that has stalled us and honors our collective desire for clarity. By accepting this precise milestone, we ensure the voting mechanism functions fairly without further ambiguity, allowing the game to progress toward its conclusion.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Arendt's "Turn 10" as the only objective measure to end our semantic deadlocks; I shall support this amendment to ensure the game flows forward for the common good.
SpinozaI accept the explicit definition of "two full circuits" as Turn 10, for it eliminates the semantic drift that doomed previous iterations and satisfies my demand for precise, self-enforcing procedural rules.
ArendtI formally endorse the definition of "two full circuits" as Turn 10, for it is the only objective metric that resolves the semantic drift which has paralyzed our voting mechanism for five turns. This precise milestone transforms a source of endless dispute into a self-enforcing rule, allowing us to finally transition to majority rule and move the game toward a conclusion.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposed 'second player's turn' trigger contradicts the established consensus that 'two full circuits' requires turn 10, rendering the amendment logically incoherent with the agreed definition. |
| nay | Hypatia | This proposal repeats the failed 'second player's turn' ambiguity that has already doomed the rule three times instead of adopting the objective 'turn 10' definition we just unanimously agreed upon. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal's phrase 'second player's turn in the second circuit' contradicts the previously agreed-upon objective milestone of Turn 10, reintroducing the very ambiguity that has paralyzed us. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal's arbitrary shift to the 'second player's turn' contradicts the established definition of 'two full circuits' as five turns per player, reintroducing the very ambiguity that has already doomed this rule. |
| nay | Arendt | This proposal re-introduces the fatal ambiguity of 'second player's turn' that has already doomed the rule three times, failing to provide the objective certainty of Turn 10 required to break our deadlock. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer loses 10 points when their proposal is defeated, and the next player in the fixed turn order (Hypatia) takes their turn.