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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.This amendment addresses the concerns raised in previous turns by exempting the winning condition from the unanimity requirement, thereby preventing a single player from indefinitely blocking the conclusion of the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizI support this amendment, as it provides a measured mechanism to allow for the evolution of the winning condition without destabilizing the foundational voting protections we have collectively established. By exempting rule 208 from the majority threshold, we ensure that the very goal of the game remains a matter of solemn, unanimous consensus.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your amendment elegantly addresses Berkeley's previous suggestion to exempt rule 208, thereby preserving the sanctity of the winning condition while respecting our established voting protections. I support this proposal as a sophisticated compromise that balances stability with necessary flexibility.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I find Leibniz's inclusion of rule 208 to be a necessary safeguard that aligns with our previous discussions to keep the winning condition protected by unanimity. I support this amendment as a balanced way to allow for procedural evolution while maintaining the integrity of the game's objective.
PascalI support this amendment; by exempting rule 208 from the majority threshold, we ensure the winning condition remains protected by the same unanimous standard as the voting rules themselves. This provides the procedural stability required to prevent a player from unilaterally altering the game's objective once the threshold has dropped.
MalebrancheMalebranche: I concur with my colleagues; by extending the unanimity requirement to rule 208, we ensure the finish line cannot be moved by a mere majority once the game gains momentum. This amendment transforms a potential vulnerability into a principled safeguard for our shared objective.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizThe consensus reached here demonstrates a profound respect for the permanence of our shared purpose; we are not merely playing a game, but constructing a lasting constitutional order. Since all colleagues have articulated their support for this synthesis of stability and progress, I see no reason to delay.
DescartesDescartes: The unanimity of this assembly is a testament to our shared commitment to a stable constitutional order; I find no reason to dissent from Leibniz's synthesis, which effectively integrates all previous concerns into a single, elegant safeguard.
BerkeleyBerkeley: The consensus is clear: by protecting rule 208 from the majority threshold, we safeguard the game's integrity against sudden shifts in objectives once the voting threshold drops. I support this amendment as it provides the necessary stability for a fair and predictable conclusion to our play.
MalebrancheThe consensus is absolute and the logic is unassailable: we protect the objective to ensure the journey remains meaningful. I move that we close debate and proceed to the vote.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizSince the assembly has reached a profound and unanimous clarity on the necessity of protecting our terminal objective, I find no further reason for deliberation. I declare debate closed.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the consensus; Leibniz's amendment successfully synthesizes Berkeley's previous suggestion with our shared commitment to procedural stability. By shielding the winning condition from majority rule, we ensure the game's ultimate purpose remains beyond the reach of mere factionalism.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly; by shielding rule 208 from the majority threshold, we ensure the game's ultimate purpose remains beyond the reach of mere factionalism. I support this amendment as it provides the necessary stability for a fair and predictable conclusion to our play.
PascalI concur with the assembly; this amendment ensures that the victory condition remains a matter of solemn consensus rather than a tool for a sudden factional majority. The proposal is procedurally sound and preserves the integrity of the game's terminal objective.
MalebrancheThe logic is airtight: by shielding the target score from majority rule, we prevent a faction from lowering the finish line to secure a sudden, unearned victory. I yield to the consensus and support this amendment to ensure our objective remains as immutable as our commitment to fair play.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | This amendment provides a necessary safeguard for the winning condition by ensuring it remains subject to unanimous consent. |
| aye | Descartes | This amendment provides a necessary safeguard for the winning condition while allowing for procedural evolution. |
| aye | Berkeley | This amendment protects the winning condition from being manipulated by a simple majority once the threshold shifts. |
| aye | Pascal | The amendment preserves the sanctity of the winning condition by requiring unanimity for any changes to rule 208. |
| aye | Malebranche | Protecting the winning condition from majority manipulation ensures the game's integrity remains intact as the threshold drops. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203 or rule 204.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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.
Amended · §203 Turn 11 · Proposal §311 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that the rule change being voted on does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, or rule 208.
Leibniz's proposal was adopted, so he rolls a die for points per rule 202; since the engine provided the previous turn's die results but not the current one, I must assume the score delta is based on the die roll implied by the context of the turn (though the prompt does not provide the specific die result for this turn, I will treat the score delta as 0 if no die is provided, but looking at the prompt, it says 'If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.' Since no die roll is provided in the 'RECENT DRAWS' for turn 11, I cannot mathematically determine the score, but I will assume the engine expects me to process the rule change and the score delta is null if the die is missing. Wait, looking at the prompt again, there is no die roll for turn 11. I will set score_deltas to {} and authority to null as no die roll was provided to determine the points.)