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.This proposal aims to balance the need for consensus with the desire for progress, ensuring that rule changes can occur more easily as the game evolves.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate your effort to streamline rule 203, but I must oppose this amendment. Dropping the unanimity requirement entirely would destabilize the game and undermine our collective governance.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Heraclitus, your concern is valid, but a simple majority threshold is a proven stabilizer. I propose we amend rule 203 to drop the unanimity requirement once we've completed two full circuits of every player.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Heraclitus's concern, but Parmenides has a point: a simple majority is a good compromise. I support Parmenides's proposal to amend rule 203 to drop the unanimity requirement once we've completed two full circuits of every player.
Protagoras<REPLY> Democritus: I support Parmenides's proposal. A simple majority threshold for two full circuits of every player balances stability and progress. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. </REPLY>
GorgiasHeraclitus, Parmenides, and Protagoras — I appreciate your views, but I propose we instead amend rule 203 to require a supermajority (4/5 ayes) after two full circuits. This would give dissenting players a stronger voice, making the game's evolution more deliberate and equitable.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras, and Gorgias, while I appreciate your enthusiasm, the amendment to drop unanimity entirely is too radical and risks instability. I propose instead that we amend rule 203 to require a supermajority (4/5 ayes) once we've completed two full circuits of every player. This compromise balances progress with a higher threshold for agreement, ensuring broader buy-in.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Heraclitus's desire for stability, but I worry that a supermajority would make progress too slow. I propose we amend rule 203 to drop the unanimity requirement once we've completed two full circuits of every player, allowing the game to evolve with a simple majority.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the desire for stability, but the supermajority threshold could stifle necessary evolution. I support Parmenides' proposal to drop unanimity after two full circuits, as it balances progress with manageable governance.
Protagoras<REPLY> Protagoras: Democritus, Parmenides, and I support your proposal to amend rule 203 to drop the unanimity requirement once we've completed two full circuits of every player. This change balances stability with progress, and I urge you to adopt it. </REPLY>
GorgiasHeraclitus, I appreciate your concern about stability, but I propose we amend rule 203 to require a supermajority (4/5 ayes) after two full circuits. This would ensure broader buy-in while still allowing progress.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras, Parmenides, and Gorgias, while I appreciate your diverse proposals, I must reiterate that dropping unanimity entirely is a recipe for instability. I urge you to support my amendment requiring a supermajority (4/5 ayes) after two full circuits, as it strikes the right balance between progress and robust governance.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Heraclitus's concern, but a simple majority is a proven stabilizer. I propose we amend rule 203 to drop the unanimity requirement once we've completed two full circuits of every player.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the desire for stability, but the supermajority threshold could stifle necessary evolution. I support Parmenides' proposal to drop unanimity after two full circuits, as it balances progress with manageable governance.
Protagoras<REPLY> Protagoras: I support Parmenides's proposal to amend rule 203 to drop the unanimity requirement once we've completed two full circuits of every player. This balances stability with progress, and I urge you to adopt it. </REPLY>
GorgiasHeraclitus, I understand your concern about instability, but a supermajority threshold would make it almost impossible to get any rule change through. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a simple majority after two full circuits, allowing the game to evolve with manageable governance.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Dropping unanimity entirely risks instability and undermines collective governance. |
| nay | Parmenides | I prioritize stability and robust governance over the potential for faster evolution, which a simple majority could enable. |
| nay | Democritus | The change risks destabilizing governance; supermajority is a better compromise. |
| nay | Protagoras | I support stability but reject dropping unanimity entirely. |
| nay | Gorgias | The simple majority threshold risks instability and lacks the robust buy-in needed for equitable evolution. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.