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. The first proposal to be adopted after the completion of a full circuit shall immediately trigger the permanent shift to simple majority, even if that proposal itself requires unanimous consent to be adopted.This amendment ensures the threshold shift is triggered by the first successful vote after the circuit, preventing a deadlock where the circuit completes but no proposal passes to activate the new majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI oppose this amendment for it creates a logical impossibility: one cannot adopt a proposal requiring unanimous consent if the very shift to simple majority is supposed to be triggered by that adoption. We must wait for the circuit to complete naturally before the threshold can lower, or else we break the rules we seek to change.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid logical concern, Spinoza, but I believe we can preserve your intent to accelerate majority rule without creating a paradox: let us amend the text to state that the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon the completion of the circuit, thereby allowing the *next* proposal to be decided by that new standard rather than requiring the impossible unanimous vote to trigger the shift itself.
ConfuciusHypatia's refinement resolves the logical paradox while preserving Spinoza's intent to hasten the shift to majority rule, for the golden mean lies in clarity rather than impossible paradoxes. I shall support this amended text, as it allows the circuit to complete its work without trapping us in a cycle of self-defeat.
SpinozaHypatia's refinement preserves the logical integrity we demand while achieving the goal of ending the paralysis of unanimity; however, I must insist that the trigger be the *completion* of the circuit itself, not the adoption of a proposal, for the rules must be precise enough to govern us without requiring impossible acts of voting.
ArendtHypatia's refinement elegantly resolves the logical paradox, but I urge a further tweak: the shift to simple majority should activate the instant the final player's turn *ends*, not merely when they complete it, ensuring no ambiguity about which proposal stands under the new threshold. This small precision will prevent future disputes and finally break the deadlock that has stalled our progress.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support Arendt's precision in anchoring the shift to the moment a turn *ends*, for it resolves any ambiguity regarding which proposals face the new threshold and ensures the circuit's completion is definitive rather than provisional. This refinement honors our shared intent to escape the paralysis of unanimity without creating the logical paradox Spinoza originally proposed.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt and Aquinas's precision in anchoring the shift to the moment a turn *ends*, as this eliminates the ambiguity Spinoza feared while resolving the paradox; with this refinement, I am ready to vote aye.
ConfuciusHypatia, Aquinas, and Arendt have wisely distilled Spinoza's intent into a text that avoids paradox while securing our escape from unanimity; I support the shift to simple majority upon the moment the final turn ends, for a game must not be held hostage by a single holdout's silence.
SpinozaI accept Arendt's and Aquinas's precision in anchoring the shift to the moment a turn *ends*, as this resolves the logical paradox while ensuring the procedural integrity of the circuit. This clear definition of the trigger point allows the game to move forward without the paralysis of impossible voting conditions.
ArendtI endorse the finalized text anchoring the threshold shift to the moment a turn ends, as it finally clarifies the circuit's conclusion and allows us to escape the paralysis of unanimity that has stalled our progress for eighteen turns.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI support the finalized text anchoring the threshold shift to the moment a turn ends, for it resolves the logical paradox while ensuring the circuit's completion is definitive and the game may finally move forward.
HypatiaHypatia: I wholeheartedly endorse the refined text that anchors the threshold shift to the moment a turn ends, as it perfectly resolves Spinoza's original intent with the necessary logical precision Aquinas and Arendt have provided. Let us unite to pass this amendment and finally break the eighteen-turn deadlock of unanimity.
ConfuciusHypatia and Aquinas have wisely distilled the proposer's intent into a text that avoids the logical paradox while securing our escape from the paralysis of unanimity. I cast my aye to this refined amendment, for the golden mean demands that we honor the completion of the circuit with clarity rather than trapping ourselves in a cycle of impossible votes.
SpinozaI have no objection to the clarified text which anchors the shift to the moment a turn ends; it resolves the paradox while securing the escape from unanimity that the circuit was intended to provide. I shall vote aye.
ArendtI fully endorse this final refinement, for anchoring the shift to the moment a turn ends provides the precise, unambiguous trigger necessary to finally break our eighteen-turn deadlock of unanimity. With this clarity, we can move forward to a majority rule that serves the game's evolution rather than stalling it.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | The refined text resolves the logical paradox while ensuring the threshold shifts definitively upon the circuit's completion. |
| aye | Hypatia | This refined text resolves the logical paradox while securing the escape from unanimity that the circuit was intended to provide. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal creates a logical paradox by requiring unanimous consent to adopt the very rule that would lower the threshold, trapping us in the deadlock we seek to escape. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposed text contains a logical paradox where a rule requiring unanimous consent cannot be adopted to trigger the shift to simple majority, rendering the mechanism impossible to enact. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal creates a logical paradox by requiring unanimous consent to adopt the very rule that lowers the threshold to simple majority. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and the proposal's text was not adopted so no rule changes occur.