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 that no more than two consecutive turns have passed since the last time the threshold was checked and found not yet reached; if two consecutive turns pass without the threshold shifting, the threshold shifts automatically at the end of the second such turn.I propose this amendment to prevent the game from stagnating under perpetual unanimity by instituting an automatic shift after a brief deadlock of two consecutive turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI offer this refinement to the golden mean: since the current text allows a single player's inaction to indefinitely stall the threshold drop, the two-turn cap ensures the circuit's logic prevails without granting any individual a permanent veto over the game's progress.
HypatiaI appreciate Aquinas's intent to prevent indefinite stalling, but a hard automatic shift after just two turns is too aggressive and risks collapsing the game into chaos; let us instead propose a compromise that requires a three-turn cap or ties the shift to a majority vote rather than an automatic trigger.
ConfuciusAquinas's two-turn cap is a swift remedy that restores the golden mean, for no single player should hold the game's progress hostage; however, to ensure stability, I propose we require a simple majority vote to *delay* the shift rather than making the shift automatic after two turns.
SpinozaWhile I agree that indefinite stalling violates the spirit of the circuit, an automatic shift after merely two turns is a tyrannical cap that ignores the complexity of consensus; I support a majority-vote delay mechanism instead, as it balances the need for progress with the preservation of unanimous consent as a genuine safeguard.
ArendtAquinas, Hypatia, and Spinoza, your concern for stability is noted, but a "delay" mechanism merely recreates the deadlock we seek to cure by shifting the burden of proof to the status quo. Instead of a majority vote to delay, let us adopt a "forced shift" trigger: if no shift occurs after two turns, the threshold drops automatically at the end of the second turn, ensuring the game's momentum is never held hostage by a single holdout's inertia.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Arendt's forced shift as the only true safeguard against indefinite stalling, for a circuit that can be paused by two turns of inertia contradicts the very nature of a "full circuit," and I urge the others to support this definitive resolution.
HypatiaWhile I appreciate Aquinas and Arendt's urgency to break the deadlock, a forced automatic shift after merely two turns is too volatile; let us instead adopt Confucius and Spinoza's suggestion to require a simple majority vote to *delay* the shift, preserving unanimous consent as a genuine safeguard while ensuring no single player can stall the game indefinitely.
ConfuciusI endorse the mechanism of a majority vote to delay the shift, for it strikes the golden mean between the tyranny of a single veto and the chaos of an automatic collapse, ensuring the game progresses only when the collective will allows.
SpinozaI reject the "forced shift" after two turns as a tyrannical erosion of unanimous consent; the majority-vote delay mechanism proposed by Confucius and me is the only principled path, as it allows the collective to preserve unanimity when truly needed without granting any single player a permanent veto.
ArendtArendt: The "majority vote to delay" merely shifts the veto to a bloc of two, preserving the deadlock we seek to cure; the forced automatic shift is the only mechanism that truly prevents a single holdout from freezing the game's momentum.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the majority-vote delay as it merely substitutes a collective veto for an individual one, allowing the same deadlock to persist if just two players dissent; the forced automatic shift after two turns is the only measure that truly honors the circuit's purpose while respecting the immutable requirement for progress.
HypatiaI propose we adopt Confucius and Spinoza's majority-vote delay mechanism, as it balances the need to prevent indefinite stalling with the necessity of preserving genuine unanimous consent, whereas the forced two-turn shift is too volatile.
ConfuciusI see the danger in the forced shift, for it turns the majority into a tyrant that strips away the very unanimity we seek to protect; instead, let us adopt the majority-vote delay to ensure that any move toward chaos requires a collective failure of will, not an arbitrary clock.
SpinozaI reject the "delay" mechanism as a mere rebranding of the veto, for it allows a minority to indefinitely suspend the circuit's logic; however, I also reject the two-turn forced shift as a tyrannical erasure of unanimity. I propose a compromise: the threshold drops automatically only after three consecutive turns pass without a shift, and this automatic drop may be overridden only by a unanimous vote of all remaining players.
ArendtArendt: Spinoza, your three-turn cap is a step toward progress, but the unanimity override resurrects the very veto we must destroy; let us accept the two-turn forced shift as the only true safeguard for the game's momentum.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The automatic shift after two turns grants no opportunity for the collective to preserve unanimity when truly needed, violating the golden mean between progress and consensus. |
| nay | Hypatia | A forced automatic shift after only two turns is too volatile and risks collapsing the game into chaos before genuine consensus can be tested. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject the two-turn cap as it grants a minority veto over the natural progression of the circuit, substituting one tyranny for another. |
| nay | Spinoza | The automatic two-turn shift constitutes a tyrannical override of unanimous consent without a genuine collective will, violating the principle that unanimity must remain a robust safeguard unless truly impossible to sustain. |
| nay | Arendt | The automatic shift mechanism is too aggressive and risks collapsing the game into chaos before genuine consensus can be reached. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points and the ruleset remains unchanged, with the turn passing to the next player in the fixed order.