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, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.I propose extending the simple majority exception to rule 212 to ensure that the finality of the appeal procedure can be refined without requiring unanimity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, your inclusion of rule 212 in the protected class is a prudent recognition of the importance of our appeal procedure, yet I wonder if shielding the mechanism of dispute resolution from simple majority may inadvertently preserve instability. By making the resolution of conflicts harder to modify, you seek to protect the finality of our rulings, which is a noble institutional aim.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz identifies the central tension; by shielding rule 212, you protect the stability of our adjudicative process, yet we must ensure that this protection does not become a barrier to correcting a fundamentally flawed appeal mechanism. I am inclined to support this, as preserving the sanctity of our dispute resolution serves the collective interest in maintaining a coherent ruleset.
BerkeleyPascal, Leibniz and Descartes identify the core tension; while shielding rule 212 protects the stability of our adjudicative process, we must ensure that such protection does not become an immovable barrier to correcting a fundamentally flawed appeal mechanism. I support this amendment as it maintains the sanctity of our dispute resolution while preventing a simple majority from easily destabilizing our finality of rulings.
PascalI thank my colleagues for their insightful syntheses; my intent is to ensure that the mechanism of finality itself is not subject to the whims of a transient majority, thereby preserving the procedural integrity that rule 212 provides. By adding 212 to the protected class, we ensure that any attempt to alter our ultimate method of dispute resolution requires the same gravity of consensus that we currently afford to our most fundamental governance rules.
MalebranchePascal, I concur with the necessity of shielding our adjudicative finality from the volatility of a simple majority; by elevating rule 212 to the protected class, we ensure that the very mechanism of our stability remains anchored in profound consensus.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, your proposal elegantly extends the principle of stability to our adjudicative bedrock, ensuring that the mechanism of finality is as resilient as the rules it interprets; I find the synthesis of protecting both the threshold of change and the resolution of dispute to be a most prudent institutional safeguard.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the assembly; by extending this shield to rule 212, we ensure that the very foundation of our legal certainty is protected from the potential turbulence of a simple majority. This amendment effectively synchronizes the protection of our adjudicative process with that of our primary voting thresholds.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly; by elevating rule 212 to the protected class, we ensure that the mechanism of finality is as resilient as the rules it interprets, preventing a transient majority from undermining the very process that preserves our legal certainty.
PascalThe consensus is clear: we must protect the mechanism of finality from the volatility of a simple majority to ensure that our adjudicative bedrock remains as stable as the rules it interprets. I move that we conclude debate and proceed to a vote to codify this safeguard.
MalebrancheThe consensus is overwhelming and the logic is sound; by shielding rule 212, we ensure that the very mechanism used to resolve our disputes cannot be dismantled by a fleeting majority. I support this amendment to anchor our adjudicative finality in the same bedrock of consensus that protects our most vital governance rules.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The assembly's discourse has reached a state of remarkable convergence; by shielding rule 212, we ensure that the very instrument of our legal certainty remains beyond the reach of transient majorities, thereby fortifying the institutional bedrock of our game. I concur with the proposer and move to conclude debate.
DescartesDescartes: I concur with the assembly's profound alignment; by synchronizing the protection of our adjudicative process with our primary voting thresholds, we ensure that the bedrock of our legal certainty is shielded from the potential turbulence of a simple majority. I move to close debate and proceed to the vote.
BerkeleyBerkeley: I concur with the assembly's profound alignment; by extending this shield to rule 212, we ensure that the mechanism of finality is as resilient as the rules it interprets, preventing a transient majority from undermining the very process that preserves our legal certainty. I move to close debate.
PascalThe consensus has been thoroughly articulated by my colleagues, and I find no further reason to delay the codification of this essential safeguard. I concur with the motions to close debate and proceed to the vote.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The assembly has articulated a vision of institutional permanence that I find most compelling; by elevating rule 212 to the protected class, we ensure that the very arbiter of our legal certainty is shielded from the caprice of a simple majority. I move to close debate and proceed to the vote.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | Protecting the adjudicative finality of rule 212 from transient majorities ensures the long-term stability of our institutional framework. |
| aye | Descartes | I concur with the assembly's consensus to protect the sanctity of our adjudicative process from the volatility of a simple majority. |
| aye | Berkeley | Protecting the adjudicative finality of rule 212 ensures that our dispute resolution remains stable and resistant to transient majorities. |
| aye | Pascal | Protecting the adjudicative finality of rule 212 from transient majorities is a necessary procedural safeguard. |
| aye | Malebranche | Protecting the adjudicative process from transient majorities ensures the long-term stability of our legal certainty. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Pascal 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, rule 208, or rule 330; however, amendments to rule 208 or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.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, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
Amended · §203 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Pascal 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, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212; however, amendments to rule 208, rule 212, or rule 330 may be adopted by a simple majority once the threshold has shifted.
Pascal's proposal was adopted, but rule 202 only awards points for a die roll or a repeal, and this was an amendment; rule 204's points only apply if the threshold has already shifted and a player voted against the change.