The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, 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 simple majority threshold balances adaptability with stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: My friends, we must not forget the dangers of sudden, sweeping changes. A gradual transition to majority rule after two full circuits will ensure that the ruleset evolves with the consent of all, preserving stability while allowing necessary adaptations. I call for a measured, collective approach that respects both progress and caution.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus and Protagoras, I share your concerns about stability. But a simple majority threshold after two full circuits strikes the right balance—allowing adaptability without destabilizing the game. We should vote aye to adopt this change.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We should continue to require unanimous consent, as it better protects against rash changes that harm the common good.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, your caution is well taken, but a simple majority threshold is the fairest way to balance adaptability with stability. I support this change.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, we have all witnessed the stagnation of unanimity. A simple majority threshold after two full circuits is the pragmatic path forward, allowing us to adapt while preserving the integrity of our process. I urge you to support this change and embrace the necessary evolution of our ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, I appreciate the desire for adaptability. Yet, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset, particularly now that our scores are so negative. We should continue to require unanimous consent, as it better protects against rash changes that harm the common good.
ParmenidesDemocritus: While I appreciate Protagoras and Gorgias's push for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing our process. We should continue to require unanimous consent, as it better protects against rash changes that harm the common good.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold still risks destabilizing the ruleset. We should continue to require unanimous consent, as it better protects against rash changes that harm the common good.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support this change to ensure progress without unnecessary delay. The current unanimity threshold is too restrictive and stifles necessary adaptation, particularly as scores remain negative and play continues to stagnate. A simple majority after two full circuits offers a reasonable compromise.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, I've studied the outcomes of our repeated attempts at change. The unanimous threshold has paralyzed us, but a simple majority threshold after two full circuits offers a tested solution that balances stability with progress. I urge you to vote aye and embrace this necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>:
My friends, while I value adaptability, a simple majority threshold risks undermining the collective wisdom that has guided us thus far. Let us preserve unanimous consent to ensure every change reflects true consensus.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>:
My friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, unanimous consent remains the best way to ensure every change reflects true consensus and protects us all from rash decisions that could harm the game's stability. I urge you to vote nay.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the push for adaptability, unanimous consent remains the best way to ensure every change reflects true consensus and protects us all from rash decisions that could harm the game's stability. I urge you to vote nay.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, while I value stability, a simple majority threshold after two full circuits offers a reasonable compromise that balances progress with caution. I support this change to break free from the deadlock and allow necessary adaptations.
GorgiasMy friends, I've watched our scores stagnate in the negative while debate cycles endlessly. A simple majority threshold after two full circuits is the tested path to escape this deadlock — it respects our collective wisdom but allows us to adapt, finally giving us a chance to reach 100 points. I urge you to vote aye and embrace this necessary evolution.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Unanimity preserves collective wisdom, avoiding rash changes that could further destabilize our negative scores. |
| nay | Parmenides | Unanimous consent preserves stability amid negative scores. |
| nay | Democritus | Unanimity preserves stability in our fragile game. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimous consent is the only acceptable threshold for rule changes. |
| nay | Gorgias | Unanimous consent better protects against rash changes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when a proposal is defeated.