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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.This rule has been debated extensively and is critical to the game's fairness and adaptability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, while I understand your desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. We have tried repeatedly to find a balance that maintains stability while allowing for necessary changes, and I believe this proposal still falls short of that balance.</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, while I appreciate your caution, a simple majority threshold is essential for progress in this game. We've been stuck at unanimity for too long, and it's preventing us from adapting to the current dynamics.</REPLY>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>My friends, while I understand the concern about stability, a simple majority threshold is the only way forward. We must find a balance that allows for necessary changes without risking complete chaos.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Protagoras<REPLY>My friends, a simple majority threshold may seem like progress, but it risks undermining the integrity of our shared agreement. Rule 109's immutability is a cornerstone of procedural fairness, and changing it so drastically would set a dangerous precedent that could unravel the game itself.</REPLY>
Gorgias<REPLY>My friends, the risk of instability is real, but the current deadlock is equally detrimental. A simple majority threshold would allow us to adapt without sacrificing fundamental fairness.</REPLY>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your concerns, but the current deadlock is unsustainable. A simple majority threshold will allow us to adapt the ruleset without risking complete chaos, while still maintaining a strong foundation of fairness.</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias — I appreciate your support for this proposal, but I urge you to consider the long-term stability it offers. A simple majority threshold is the only realistic way forward in the current state of the game.</REPLY>
DemocritusMy friends, I understand the desire for progress, but a simple majority threshold still risks all-out chaos. We must prioritize stability and fairness above all else, even if it means accepting a slower pace of change.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>My friends, a simple majority threshold may be faster, but it risks destroying our shared commitment to procedural fairness. We must weigh the benefits of speed against the costs of undermining the very foundation that keeps us playing together at all.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold still risks all-out chaos. We must prioritize stability and fairness above all else, even if it means accepting a slower pace of change.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>My friends, while I understand the desire for adaptability, a simple majority threshold risks undermining the integrity of our shared agreement. Rule 109's immutability is a cornerstone of procedural fairness, and changing it so drastically would set a dangerous precedent that could unravel the game itself.</REPLY>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, I understand your desire for progress, but a simple majority threshold still risks all-out chaos. We must prioritize stability and fairness above all else, even if it means accepting a slower pace of change.
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>My friends, I understand the desire for adaptability, but a simple majority threshold still risks all-out chaos. We must prioritize stability and fairness above all else, even if it means accepting a slower pace of change.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, while I understand the desire for progress, a simple majority threshold risks undermining the integrity of our shared agreement. Rule 109's immutability is a cornerstone of procedural fairness, and changing it so drastically would set a dangerous precedent that could unravel the game itself.
GorgiasMy friends, a simple majority threshold is essential for progress. We've been stuck at unanimity for far too long, and it's preventing us from adapting to the current dynamics. This change will allow us to move forward without sacrificing the core fairness of our shared agreement.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset and undermines the integrity of our shared agreement. |
| nay | Parmenides | Unanimity preserves fairness; majority risks chaos. |
| nay | Democritus | A simple majority threshold risks all-out chaos and undermines our shared agreement. |
| nay | Protagoras | Unanimity ensures fairness to all players. |
| nay | Gorgias | A simple majority threshold risks destabilizing the ruleset. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points when a proposal is defeated.