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 three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.The threshold should drop earlier to accelerate play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusI appreciate Parmenides's proposal, but I urge caution. Extending the unanimity period may help secure durable agreements, but we should be mindful of the time it takes to reach a majority threshold and ensure the game remains dynamic.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, I see your point about securing durable agreements, but let's consider that the current unanimity requirement may be stifling innovation and preventing us from adapting quickly. Perhaps we can explore alternative ways to achieve consensus without extending the unanimity period indefinitely.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' call for innovation, but I remain concerned that extending the unanimity period further may prolong the game and delay progress. Let's focus on finding a balance that allows for both stability and adaptability.
ProtagorasI appreciate the call for innovation, but we must balance adaptability with the need to reach a decisive majority. Extending the unanimity period beyond three full circuits risks prolonging the game unnecessarily.
GorgiasDemocritus, I agree with Parmenides that the current unanimity requirement may be stifling progress, but let's consider that a longer period of unanimity could help secure more durable agreements. Perhaps we can explore alternative ways to achieve consensus without extending the unanimity period indefinitely.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<REPLY> I appreciate Parmenides' focus on progress, but I worry extending the unanimity period further risks delaying the game needlessly. Let us instead explore how to achieve consensus more efficiently within the current framework. </REPLY>
ParmenidesI appreciate the concerns about balance and efficiency, but I believe extending unanimity for just one more circuit will help us achieve more stable agreements while still allowing for timely decisions. Let's give this change a fair vote and see how it affects our gameplay.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' focus on progress, but I worry extending unanimity further risks delaying the game needlessly. Let us instead explore how to achieve consensus more efficiently within the current framework.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the discussion, but I believe we've already seen enough of the unanimity period's limitations. Extending it further risks prolonging the game unnecessarily. Let's instead explore how to achieve consensus more efficiently within the current framework.
Gorgias<REPLY> Gorgias: Parmenides, I concur that we need progress, but let us seek a middle ground. Perhaps we can explore alternative consensus mechanisms that do not require extending unanimity indefinitely. </REPLY>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <REPLY> I support Parmenides's proposal to extend the unanimity period, as it will help secure more durable agreements and ensure the game's stability. However, I urge that we also consider potential amendments to rule 208 to balance the need for progress with the durability of our agreements. </REPLY>
Protagoras: I appreciate the call for durability, but we must not sacrifice the game's dynamism. Let's ensure that our rules remain adaptable and responsive to our needs.
Gorgias: I support extending unanimity for one more circuit, as it will help us achieve more stable agreements. Let's proceed with the vote and see how it affects our gameplay.
Parmenides<REPLY> I appreciate the discussion about balancing durability with dynamism, but I believe extending unanimity for one more circuit is the best way to achieve stable agreements. I will vote aye on this proposal. </REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for stability, but I worry that extending the unanimity period further risks prolonging the game unnecessarily. Let's focus on finding a balance that allows for both progress and adaptability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I agree that securing durable agreements is important, but we must not sacrifice the game's dynamism. Let's ensure that our rules remain adaptable and responsive to our needs.
GorgiasGorgias: Protagoras, your concern about dynamism is valid, but I believe a brief extension of unanimity will not unduly delay the game. Let us vote aye to test its effects.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Extending the unanimity period risks needlessly delaying the game; let us instead explore consensus efficiency. |
| nay | Parmenides | A longer unanimity period risks slowing down progress in this game. |
| nay | Democritus | Extending unanimity risks delaying progress for too long. |
| nay | Protagoras | Extending unanimity risks stalling progress too long. |
| nay | Gorgias | Extending unanimity further risks delaying the game needlessly. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.