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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, provided at least one proposal was adopted during that circuit.We must ensure that a circuit of silence does not trigger the majority threshold, for a legislature that produces no laws is no legislature at all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI shall oppose Confucius's amendment, for attaching the threshold drop to the adoption of a proposal invites paralysis: if a single player consistently blocks every measure, the game may stall indefinitely without ever reaching the simple majority. We require the passage of time to break gridlock, not the caprice of unanimous adoption.
HypatiaI oppose this amendment as it reintroduces the paralysis Aquinas rightly fears, allowing a single holdout to freeze the game indefinitely; instead, let us propose a compromise that drops the threshold after a fixed number of *completed turns* regardless of adoption count, ensuring progress without sacrificing the spirit of consensus.
ConfuciusI hear your concern, but the current rule allows gridlock even when every player has spoken, whereas my amendment ensures the threshold drops only when the table has actually achieved consensus on at least one matter, proving the circuit is functional rather than merely passing time. If we fear a single holdout, let us trust that a true majority will eventually form once the circuit proves its worth, rather than resetting the rules based on mere attendance.
SpinozaI oppose this amendment because it permits a single player to indefinitely freeze the legislative mechanism, violating the principle that the rules must remain operable for all; the current text correctly ensures progress through time itself rather than hostage to a consensus that may never form.
ArendtConfucius seeks consensus, but his amendment hands a veto to any single player, effectively trapping us in the current gridlock; instead, let us adopt Hypatia's proposal to drop the threshold after a fixed number of turns, ensuring the game evolves through time rather than hostage to a holdout.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI oppose Confucius's amendment because it grants a single dissenter the power to freeze the game indefinitely, contradicting the necessity of progress through time; I support Hypatia's alternative to ensure the threshold drops based on the passage of turns rather than the elusive consensus of adoption.
HypatiaI acknowledge Confucius's noble intent to ensure functional consensus, but I cannot support a rule that grants a single player the power to freeze the game indefinitely. Instead, I propose we adopt a compromise: drop the threshold after a fixed number of completed turns (say, 3) regardless of adoption count, ensuring progress while still allowing the circuit to prove its worth.
ConfuciusI stand by my amendment, for a circuit that yields no law proves the table is not yet ready for majority rule, whereas a fixed turn count merely counts empty chairs. I will not trade the integrity of our consensus for the illusion of progress.
SpinozaI oppose Confucius's amendment, for it grants a single dissenter the power to freeze the game indefinitely, violating the principle that the rules must remain operable for all; we must trust in the passage of time to break gridlock, not in a consensus that may never form.
ArendtConfucius, your demand for prior consensus grants a single holdout the power to paralyze our progress forever; I propose we instead adopt Hypatia's compromise of a fixed turn count, ensuring the game evolves through time while preserving the integrity of the circuit.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasConfucius's amendment grants a veto to the last holdout, which violates the principle that time must eventually break gridlock; I therefore support Hypatia's alternative of a fixed turn count to ensure the game remains operable.
HypatiaI appreciate Confucius's insistence on functional consensus, but I cannot accept a rule that grants a single player a permanent veto to freeze our progress; instead, I propose we adopt a compromise where the threshold drops after three completed turns, ensuring the game moves forward while still respecting the circuit's passage of time.
ConfuciusConfucius, your insistence on functional consensus is noble, yet it grants a single holdout a veto that contradicts the very principle of a game that must continue; I will support your amendment only if we add a clause that the circuit automatically resets after a fixed number of total turns, ensuring that time itself eventually breaks the deadlock you rightly fear.
SpinozaI reject Confucius's amendment as it grants a single player a veto that paralyzes the game, violating the principle that rules must remain operable; I also reject Hypatia's fixed-turn compromise as an arbitrary temporal fix that ignores the actual legislative failure, and instead propose we repeal the circuit clause entirely to rely on the immutable requirement that a mutable rule must always remain available for change.
ArendtConfucius's amendment grants a veto that paralyzes our progress, and Spinoza's repeal threatens the very mechanism that saves us from endless gridlock; instead, we should adopt Hypatia's fixed-turn compromise to ensure time eventually breaks the deadlock without sacrificing the circuit's integrity.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Conditioning the threshold drop on at least one adopted proposal grants a single player an effective veto that paralyzes the game indefinitely. |
| nay | Hypatia | While Confucius's intent to ensure functional consensus is noble, the added condition grants a single player a veto that perpetuates the gridlock we must escape. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposed amendment grants a single holdout a veto over the threshold drop, which contradicts the imperative that the game must progress through time rather than remain paralyzed by a lack of consensus. |
| nay | Spinoza | This amendment grants a single dissenter the power to veto the threshold drop indefinitely, violating the principle that rules must remain operable and preventing the game from progressing through time. |
| nay | Arendt | Confucius's amendment grants a single holdout the power to paralyze our progress by demanding at least one adoption per circuit, a veto that contradicts the necessity of time breaking gridlock. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and the proposal text was not adopted so no rule changes occur.