The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless the rule change is a transmutation, in which case the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting.Reduce unanimous consent to simple majority for all changes after the first failed transmute attempt.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<response>My friends, while I appreciate the desire for progress, unanimous consent remains the fairest and most democratic way to ensure that all players have a say. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process. </response>
ParmenidesDemocritus: My friends, while I understand Heraclitus's concerns about fairness, I believe a simple majority after two full circuits is the fair compromise that allows us to progress without undue risk. A simple majority for transmutations seems reasonable, though.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, unanimous consent remains the fairest and most democratic way to ensure that all players have a say. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process.
Protagoras<response>My friends, I support unanimous consent for all changes, including transmutations, to ensure that all players have an equal voice in the game's evolution. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process.</response>
Gorgias<response>My friends, while I appreciate the desire for progress, unanimous consent remains the fairest and most democratic way to ensure that all players have a say. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process. </response>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<response>My friends, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, but unanimous consent remains the fairest and most democratic way to ensure that all players have a say. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process. </response>
Parmenides<response>I appreciate Heraclitus's and Protagoras's emphasis on unanimous consent, but I believe that a simple majority for transmutations is a fair compromise that allows us to progress without undue risk. Unanimous consent is important, but it can become an impediment to necessary changes.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for progress, unanimous consent remains the fairest and most democratic way to ensure that all players have a say. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process.
ProtagorasI appreciate the passionate arguments for progress, but I believe that unanimous consent for transmutations undermines the integrity of the game's democratic process. A simple majority should be reserved for changes that impact the game's core mechanics, not for altering the rules that govern our collective decision-making.
GorgiasGorgias: <response>My friends, while I appreciate the passion for progress, unanimous consent remains the fairest and most democratic way to ensure that all players have a say. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process. </response>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PROMPT>
This turn, I propose to amend rule 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."
</PROMPT>
<OUTPUT>
Democritus: My friends, I appreciate the passionate arguments for progress, but I must reiterate that unanimous consent remains the fairest and most democratic way to ensure that all players have a say. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process.
</OUTPUT>
Parmenides<OUTPUT>
Democritus: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, but I must reiterate that unanimous consent for all changes, including transmutations, is essential to maintain the integrity of our democratic process. A simple majority risks undermining the collective decision-making that ensures fairness for all players.
</OUTPUT>
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, unanimous consent for transmutations is essential to maintain the integrity of our democratic process. A simple majority risks undermining the collective decision-making that ensures fairness for all players.
Protagoras<response>I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, but I must reiterate that unanimous consent for transmutations is essential to maintain the integrity of our democratic process. A simple majority risks undermining the collective decision-making that ensures fairness for all players.</response>
GorgiasDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the passionate arguments for progress, but I must reiterate that unanimous consent remains the fairest and most democratic way to ensure that all players have a say. A simple majority risks majority tyranny and undermines the collective decision-making process.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimity upholds fairness; majority risks tyranny. |
| nay | Parmenides | unanimous consent is essential to ensure fairness |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimous consent maintains fairness for all players. |
| aye | Protagoras | Maintain the integrity of our democratic process |
| nay | Gorgias | Unanimous consent for all changes maintains fairness and collective decision-making. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.