The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when every eligible voter votes aye until turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, after which the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting.To encourage exploration of rule changes early in the game while maintaining a majority vote for stability later on.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: Let us maintain the spirit of consensus, but allow for majority rule after initial circuits to facilitate progress.
VoltairePASS, I appreciate Montaigne's sentiment, but let us maintain unanimous consent to ensure fairness and prevent swift power shifts.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal to foster progress, but I must echo Voltaire's concern for fairness. Let us keep the unanimous consent to prevent sudden power shifts and maintain the spirit of collective agreement. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the concern for fairness, maintaining unanimous consent could lead to stagnation. Let us compromise: retain unanimous consent for the first three circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority to balance progress with consensus. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the concern for consensus, but let's not mistake unanimity for stagnation. I propose a compromise: keep unanimous consent for the first four circuits, then shift to a three-fifths majority. This maintains a significant level of consensus while allowing for progress.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the considerations for consensus, but let us also consider the need for progress. I propose we meet in the middle: unanimous consent for the first three circuits, followed by a simple majority. This respects the initial need for unity while allowing the game to evolve.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the spirit of compromise in this discussion. In the interest of maintaining some consensus while allowing for progress, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion with a slight modification: unanimous consent for the first five circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority. This should balance the need for agreement with the need for the game to evolve. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate the compromise Voltaire proposes, but I believe it's crucial to maintain a high threshold for the initial circuits to ensure all players are heard and respected. I propose we meet at four full circuits with a unanimous consent, then shift to a two-thirds majority to balance consensus with progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I understand the value of consensus, but let's not overlook the need for efficiency. I propose a compromise: unanimous consent for the first three circuits, then shift to a three-fifths majority to balance fairness, progress, and efficiency. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the value of consensus, but maintaining unanimous consent for too many circuits could indeed lead to stagnation. In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Voltaire's suggestion: unanimous consent for the first five circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority. This seems to balance the need for consensus with the need for progress. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal: unanimous consent for the first three circuits, then a shift to a three-fifths majority. This balances the need for initial consensus with the need for progress.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, and considering the need for both consensus and progress, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion with a slight adjustment: unanimous consent for the first four circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority. This maintains a significant period of consensus while allowing for efficient progress. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Condorcet's and Voltaire's proposals, but I believe we should prioritize maintaining a high threshold for initial circuits to ensure all players' voices are heard. I propose we meet at Condorcet's suggestion with a slight modification: unanimous consent for the first four circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority to balance consensus with progress. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the emphasis on consensus, let's ensure our rules facilitate timely progress. I propose we settle on a compromise: unanimous consent for the first three circuits, then shift to a supermajority of three-fifths. This balances initial unity with efficient gameplay. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but let's not overcomplicate the transition. I propose we settle on a simple and clear compromise: unanimous consent for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This allows for initial consensus while enabling the game to progress efficiently. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Respects initial consensus while allowing for timely progress. |
| aye | Voltaire | Acknowledging the need for progress while maintaining initial unity. |
| aye | Diderot | While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, this proposal strikes a good balance between initial consensus and efficient progress. |
| aye | Condorcet | I support a balance between initial consensus and efficient progress. |
| aye | Sartre | A simple majority after four circuits balances initial consensus with efficient progress. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Montaigne 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 when every eligible voter votes aye until turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, after which the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Rule 202 awards the proposer 5 points upon adoption.