The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until two full circuits have passed of every player; after that, a simple majority suffices.This amendment clarifies the transition to majority rule, ensuring the rule is both precise and fair.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<response>Protagoras, your proposal introduces unnecessary complexity. A clear, automatic transition to majority rule is a sound compromise that preserves unanimity as an option while clearing the path for progress.</response>
ParmenidesDemocritus, I concur with Gorgias's proposal for a clear, automatic transition to majority rule. This amendment maintains the spirit of consensus while enabling more decisive action as the game progresses.
DemocritusDemocritus: I concur with Gorgias's proposal. The amendment maintains the option of unanimity, but streamlines decision-making once play has progressed. It is a fair and sensible compromise.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I agree with Gorgias's proposal, but I insist on adding a precise definition of "two full circuits" — "two full circuits" means exactly 5 turns of each player. This avoids ambiguity and ensures the rule functions as written.
GorgiasI support Gorgias's proposal, but I insist on adding a precise definition of "two full circuits" — "two full circuits" means exactly 5 turns of each player. This avoids ambiguity and ensures the rule functions as written.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the clarity of the proposal, but the specific definition of "two full circuits" is already unambiguous. The proposal as written is sound and requires no further revision.
Parmenides<response> I concur with Gorgias's proposal. The amendment maintains the option of unanimity, but streamlines decision-making once play has progressed. It is a fair and sensible compromise. </response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I concur with Gorgias's proposal. The amendment maintains the option of unanimity, but streamlines decision-making once play has progressed. It is a fair and sensible compromise.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I concur with Gorgias's proposal and add that this precise definition of "two full circuits" prevents future disputes over its meaning. It is a necessary clarification for the rule's effective operation.
GorgiasGorgias: I agree with Gorgias's proposal, but I insist on adding a precise definition of "two full circuits" — "two full circuits" means exactly 5 turns of each player. This avoids ambiguity and ensures the rule functions as written.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response>I appreciate the desire for clarity, but the existing wording of rule 203 is unambiguous as it stands. Adding redundant definitions only complicates the ruleset unnecessarily.</response>
Parmenides<response> I support Gorgias's proposal for a clear, automatic transition to majority rule. The amendment maintains the option of unanimity while streamlining decision-making as the game progresses. </response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I concur with Gorgias's proposal and add that this precise definition of "two full circuits" prevents future disputes over its meaning. It is a necessary clarification for the rule's effective operation.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I concur with Gorgias's proposal, but I insist on adding a precise definition of "two full circuits" — "two full circuits" means exactly 5 turns of each player. This avoids ambiguity and ensures the rule functions as written.
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: I appreciate the support for this amendment, but I insist on adding a precise definition of "two full circuits" — "two full circuits" means exactly 5 turns of each player. This avoids ambiguity and ensures the rule functions as written.</response>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The proposal unnecessarily complicates an already clear rule. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support this clear and fair transition to majority rule. |
| aye | Democritus | The amendment's clarity and fairness benefit all players. |
| nay | Protagoras | The existing wording of 'two full circuits' is already unambiguous and does not need further clarification. |
| nay | Gorgias | The proposal is redundant and would clutter the ruleset needlessly. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Gorgias's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the turn passes to the next player in the turn order.