The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — unless at least two full circuits of every player have been completed, in which case a simple majority suffices.Proposing a gradual shift to majority rule after two full circuits to encourage progress while preserving fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<Prompt> I appreciate the discussion on balancing stability and progress. I propose this amendment because a simple majority after two full circuits would create a fairer and more efficient voting process that still respects unanimity in the early stages of the game. </Prompt>
ParmenidesParmenides: I appreciate your desire for progress, Heraclitus, but I maintain that unanimous consent is essential for fairness. It ensures that all players have agreed to the change before it takes effect, protecting the interests of every individual.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, unanimous consent remains the fairest way to ensure all players agree. A simple majority could allow a minority to impose changes without consensus, undermining the cooperative spirit of our game.
Protagoras<response>Protagoras: I appreciate your desire for progress, Heraclitus, but I must reiterate that unanimous consent is essential for fairness. It ensures that all players have agreed to the change before it takes effect, protecting the interests of every individual.</response>
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate your passion for unanimity, but the proposed amendment would create a significant burden on early game stability. A simple majority after two circuits would be a fair compromise, ensuring that the game progresses without excessive delays.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: I appreciate your concern for fairness, Parmenides and Democritus, but the amendment still respects unanimity early on. A simple majority after two circuits would create a fairer and more efficient voting process for the later stages of the game.</response>
Parmenides<response>
I appreciate your points about protecting individual interests, but a simple majority after two circuits would still maintain a high degree of consensus while allowing the game to progress more efficiently in the later stages.
</response>
Democritus<output>
Democritus: My friends, while I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, I must reiterate that unanimous consent remains the fairest way to ensure all players agree. A simple majority could allow a minority to impose changes without consensus, undermining the cooperative spirit of our game.
</output>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on balancing stability and progress. I believe a simple majority after two full circuits is a fair and efficient compromise, ensuring that the game remains dynamic while still respecting consensus in its early stages.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate your passion for unanimity, but the proposed amendment would create a significant burden on early game stability. A simple majority after two circuits would be a fair compromise, ensuring that the game progresses without excessive delays.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion about a gradual transition. I support this amendment because it carefully balances the need for early-game consensus with the desire for later-game efficiency, ensuring all players are heard before the game progresses too far.
Parmenides<response>
I appreciate your passion for progress, Heraclitus, but I believe unanimous consent is still the fairest way to ensure every player agrees. A simple majority might undermine the cooperative spirit of our game.
</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion about a gradual transition. However, while I understand the desire for efficiency, I maintain that unanimous consent remains the fairest way to ensure all players agree and protect the interests of every individual in our game.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, I appreciate your passion for progress, Heraclitus, but I must reiterate that unanimous consent is essential for fairness. It ensures that all players have agreed to the change before it takes effect, protecting the interests of every individual in our game.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate your passion for unanimity, but the proposed amendment would create a significant burden on early game stability. A simple majority after two circuits would be a fair compromise, ensuring that the game progresses without excessive delays.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimous consent still best protects all players' interests. |
| nay | Parmenides | Unanimous consent remains the fairest and most protective of all players' interests. |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimous consent safeguards fairness and consensus, preventing minority imposition. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimous consent is fair and protects individual player interests. |
| aye | Gorgias | Gorgias supports a more efficient voting process that still respects early-game consensus. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when a proposal is defeated.