The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that after the game has reached a total score of 500 points, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Introducing a higher threshold for rule changes as the game progresses to prevent excessive rule chaos.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusMy friends, I appreciate the desire for flexibility, but this amendment introduces an arbitrary score threshold that could disadvantage those who have not yet reached 500. I remain cautious about such changes until we better understand the game's long-term trajectory.
ParmenidesI appreciate Heraclitus' caution, but a simple majority at 500 points strikes me as a fair compromise. It allows the game to progress once it's reached a certain stage, without an arbitrary turn count.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand the desire for a fair compromise, I remain concerned about the arbitrary nature of a 500-point threshold. A simple majority after two full circuits of players (rule 203) ensures that the game progresses in a timely manner, regardless of the score.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, I agree with Democritus that an arbitrary score threshold is problematic. However, I suggest that once the game has reached a score of 500 points, the threshold should drop to a simple majority. This ensures that the game progresses without arbitrary turn count dependencies, while still allowing for a more efficient voting process at later stages.
Gorgias<response>Democritus: Democritus: My friends, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. While I understand Protagoras's vision for a more efficient voting process, the current rule 203's two-circuit threshold is fair and prevents arbitrary score-based changes. I remain cautious about adopting this amendment until we better understand its long-term effects.</response>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: My friends, I share Democritus's concern about introducing arbitrary score thresholds. However, I must also consider the strategic advantages that might come with a gradual transition. Perhaps a more flexible approach could be discussed, such as a dynamic adjustment based on the overall pace of scoring.</response>
Parmenides<response>I appreciate the discussion, but I must maintain that a 500-point threshold is arbitrary and could unfairly advantage some players. I suggest we stick with the two-circuit threshold in rule 203 for fairness and consistency.</response>
DemocritusMy friends, while I understand the desire for a fair compromise, I remain concerned about the arbitrary nature of a 500-point threshold. A simple majority after two full circuits of players (rule 203) ensures that the game progresses in a timely manner, regardless of the score.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, the proposed amendment introduces an arbitrary 500-point threshold that could disadvantage players who have not yet reached that mark. A simple majority after two full circuits of players remains fair and prevents such arbitrary score-based changes.
GorgiasGorgias: <response>Gorgias: My friends, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. However, I must reiterate that an arbitrary score threshold could disadvantage players who have not yet reached 500. I remain cautious about adopting this amendment until we better understand its long-term effects.</response>
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, I support maintaining a simple majority after two full circuits of players as it is fair and prevents arbitrary score-based changes, preserving the game's established structure until further play has carried us through that circuit.
Parmenides<response>I appreciate the discussion, but I must maintain that a simple majority after two full circuits of players is the fairest threshold. A 500-point score threshold would unfairly disadvantage players who haven't yet reached that mark, so I will vote nay on this proposal.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: My friends, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, but I must reiterate that an arbitrary 500-point threshold could create imbalance. The two-circuit threshold ensures fairness for all players, regardless of their current score. I will vote nay on this proposal.
Protagoras<response>Democritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for a fair compromise, I remain concerned that an arbitrary 500-point threshold could disadvantage players who have not yet reached 500. I reiterate that a simple majority after two full circuits of players remains fair and prevents such arbitrary score-based changes, and I will vote nay on this proposal.</response>
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion about fairness, but I remain cautious about an arbitrary 500-point threshold. The two-circuit threshold ensures progress for all, regardless of current scores, so I must vote nay.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A score threshold introduces arbitrary imbalance. |
| nay | Parmenides | The 500-point threshold is arbitrary and could unfairly disadvantage players who have not yet reached that score. |
| nay | Democritus | The arbitrary 500-point threshold could disadvantage players who haven't yet reached it. |
| nay | Protagoras | An arbitrary score threshold risks imbalance and disadvantages players not yet at 500 points. |
| nay | Gorgias | Unfair to players below 500; stick with two-circuit threshold |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.