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.Reducing the unanimity period to a single circuit provides a reasonable balance between initial stability and the prevention of permanent deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile I appreciate the desire to expedite the transition to a majority threshold, reducing the period of foundational stability to a single circuit may be premature given that we have not yet established a consistent rhythm of play. I propose we maintain the two-circuit requirement to ensure the ruleset reaches a state of sufficient maturity before the requirement for unanimity is lifted.
DescartesBerkeley, I find your proposal to be a sensible middle ground between my failed attempt at a single circuit and Leibniz's insistence on two. If we can reach consensus on this single-circuit transition, we ensure the game's momentum without sacrificing the necessary initial stability.
BerkeleyLeibniz, the current unanimity requirement has already resulted in two failed attempts that penalize the proposers; a single circuit provides enough stability to test the ruleset while preventing the score stagnation caused by constant vetoes. I propose we adopt this middle path to ensure the game actually progresses.
PascalLeibniz, your "foundational stability" is becoming a mechanism for score attrition; a single circuit is a precise and sufficient period to establish a rhythm without the punitive stagnation Berkeley describes. I will vote aye to ensure the game's progression, provided the transition remains a single, clearly defined circuit.
MalebrancheLeibniz, your "foundational stability" is merely a euphemism for a deadlock that drains our scores without enriching our rules. By adopting Berkeley’s single-circuit transition, we honor the spirit of consensus while finally allowing the game's evolution to outpace its attrition.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizThe concerns regarding score attrition are noted, but we must not mistake haste for progress; a single circuit is a fleeting moment that offers no true test of the ruleset's integrity. I would rather endure a period of slow, deliberate growth than rush into a majority-rule regime before our institutional foundations are truly tested.
DescartesLeibniz, I acknowledge your concern for stability, but we must recognize that current rules are already causing score attrition through failed proposals. I will support Berkeley's middle path to prevent further penalties, as a single circuit provides a meaningful test of our ruleset's integrity without the risk of immediate chaos.
BerkeleyLeibniz, we are already experiencing the attrition you fear; two failed proposals have already penalized the proposers, and a third failure will only deepen our collective deficit. Let us move to a single circuit to prove the ruleset's integrity through action rather than through the stagnation of failed consensus.
PascalLeibniz, your preference for "deliberate growth" is currently manifesting as a mathematical certainty of score loss for all players; a single circuit provides a mathematically verifiable period of stability that satisfies the requirement for a procedural foundation. I support Berkeley's amendment to prevent further unnecessary attrition.
MalebrancheLeibniz, your insistence on "maturity" is a luxury the current scoring system cannot afford; we are not building a cathedral, we are playing a game that is currently punishing us for the very act of trying to improve it. I side with Berkeley and Pascal—one circuit is the only rational way to balance structural integrity with the necessity of movement.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: My colleagues mistake the preservation of order for a desire to punish; however, I must concede that a ruleset which merely accumulates negative scores is not a stable foundation, but a crumbling one. If we must shorten the period of unanimity to preserve the players' capacity to act, let us at least ensure that the transition is a definitive and singular event.
DescartesLeibniz, your concession is the first step toward a sustainable equilibrium; if we must trade absolute stability for the ability to act, Berkeley's single-circuit proposal is the most rational compromise. I join Pascal and Malebranche in supporting this amendment to prevent further score attrition while still granting the ruleset a period of initial unity.
BerkeleyLeibniz, your concession acknowledges the reality of our situation: a ruleset that punishes its players for engagement is not a stable foundation, but a failing one. Since we have reached a consensus that a single circuit provides a sufficient test of our integrity without the mathematical certainty of further attrition, I move that we close debate and proceed to the vote.
PascalThe argument for stability has been weighed against the mathematical certainty of attrition, and the single-circuit threshold provides a precise, verifiable period of consensus. I support the amendment as written to ensure the ruleset's evolution is no longer stymied by a requirement that serves only to penalize engagement.
MalebrancheLeibniz has finally acknowledged that a ruleset which punishes its players is a failing one; let us now act on that realization and secure the game's momentum. I support Berkeley's amendment and move to close debate.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | I concede that a ruleset which mandates score attrition through failed consensus is a crumbling foundation rather than a stable one. |
| aye | Descartes | I support this compromise to prevent further score attrition while still providing a period of initial stability. |
| aye | Berkeley | The current unanimity requirement is causing unnecessary score attrition and preventing the game from evolving. |
| aye | Pascal | The current requirement for unanimity is causing mathematical attrition that undermines the game's viability. |
| aye | Malebranche | A single circuit offers a necessary compromise to prevent further score attrition while still establishing a period of initial consensus. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Berkeley 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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.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.
Berkeley's proposal to amend rule 203 was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a rule unless it is a failed proposal or a specific scoring rule is triggered; rule 202 awards points to the proposer, but the proposal text itself did not trigger a score change via rule 204.