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.Maintain unanimous consent for transmutations, as it is vital to prevent rule abuse.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY> Democritus's proposed amendment to rule 203 could help expedite rule changes, but I worry it might weaken the durability of our institutions. I shall support it only if we retain the unanimity threshold for transmutations, to prevent any rule from becoming immune to change.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Thank you, Heraclitus, for your thoughtful support. I believe that retaining the unanimity threshold for transmutations is a reasonable compromise that preserves both stability and flexibility in the ruleset.
DemocritusDemocritus: I thank Heraclitus and Parmenides for their support, but I'd like to clarify: the proposed amendment to rule 203 would drop the unanimity threshold to a simple majority after two full circuits of all players. This change would make it easier to adopt new rules, but could also risk instability if too many changes are made too quickly. I'm willing to support the amendment, but I'd like to see it paired with a new rule that requires a supermajority for any rule that could significantly alter the game's balance.
ProtagorasDemocritus: I appreciate the concerns about stability, but a simple majority for most changes still leaves significant protection against arbitrary rule changes — especially since transmutations remain unanimous (§109).
GorgiasProtagoras: Democritus, your amendment to rule 203 is a reasonable step toward faster rule changes, but I urge you to consider a supermajority for amendments that could alter the game's scoring or turn order — ensuring that our core mechanics remain stable and fair for all players.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY>
Democritus: Thank you, Gorgias, for your call for a supermajority on amendments to core mechanics. I believe this is an excellent proposal that would help ensure the game's integrity even as we streamline rule adoption. I'll support the amendment to rule 203 only if we also adopt this supermajority requirement for scoring and turn order changes.
</REPLY>
ParmenidesDemocritus: I appreciate the support, but I'm concerned that a supermajority for scoring and turn order changes could stifle necessary adjustments. Let's proceed with my amendment to rule 203 as is.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Thank you, Parmenides, for your confidence in this amendment. However, I would like to emphasize that even a simple majority requires the support of multiple players, and this change would still allow us to adapt our rules as needed while maintaining a degree of stability. I am willing to support this amendment, but I would like to ensure that the supermajority requirement for scoring and turn order changes is also adopted.
ProtagorasDemocritus: I appreciate the concerns about stability, but a simple majority for most changes still leaves significant protection against arbitrary rule changes — especially since transmutations remain unanimous (§109).
GorgiasDemocritus: Thank you, Gorgias, for your call for a supermajority on amendments to core mechanics. I believe this is an excellent proposal that would help ensure the game's integrity even as we streamline rule adoption. I'll support the amendment to rule 203 only if we also adopt this supermajority requirement for scoring and turn order changes.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>Heraclitus: I support the amendment to rule 203. However, I agree with Gorgias and Democritus that a supermajority should be required for any rule changes affecting scoring or turn order, to maintain balance. I propose adding this as a new rule amendment.</REPLY>
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus: Thank you, Heraclitus and Gorgias, for your support in adding a supermajority requirement for scoring and turn order changes. I believe this amendment to rule 203, along with the supermajority proposal, will strike a good balance between flexibility and stability in our game.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the support for the amendment to rule 203, and I agree that a supermajority for scoring and turn order changes is an excellent proposal. I will support both this amendment and the supermajority requirement to maintain the game's integrity and fairness for all players.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus: I support your proposal to amend rule 203. I believe it strikes a good balance between flexibility and stability.
GorgiasHeraclitus: I support the amendment to rule 203 and the supermajority requirement for scoring and turn order changes. These changes will ensure that rule changes are both swift and fair, benefiting all players.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | This proposal risks destabilizing the game; a supermajority threshold for core mechanics is essential for balance. |
| aye | Parmenides | Supporting a streamlined voting rule that still maintains stability for core mechanics. |
| aye | Democritus | Democritus supports this amendment as it balances flexibility and stability. |
| nay | Protagoras | Maintaining unanimity for transmutations (§109) already prevents arbitrary rule changes; this change to rule 203 risks instability without adequate safeguards. |
| nay | Gorgias | Democritus's proposal risks instability without a supermajority safeguard for core mechanics. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.