The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until two full circuits of every player have been completed; thereafter, a simple majority of those voting suffices for adoption.Clarifies the transition to majority rule to ensure fairness and predictability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: The current wording is unambiguous and sufficient. An explicit exception is unnecessary and risks ambiguity.</response>
Parmenides<response>
Heraclitus, I appreciate your point about ambiguity. To mitigate that concern, I propose we amend [203] to read: 'A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — until two full circuits of every player have been completed; thereafter, a simple majority of those voting suffices for adoption.' This keeps our original intent while adding explicit clarity.
</response>
Democritus<response>Democritus: I agree that explicit clarity is key, but the current wording of [203] is already unambiguous. Adding an explicit exception might create new ambiguities or loopholes.</response>
ProtagorasProtagoras: <response>Protagoras: I appreciate the desire for clarity, but the existing wording of rule 203 is unambiguous and sufficient. An explicit exception is unnecessary and risks introducing new ambiguities.</response>
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: Parmenides, I appreciate the effort to clarify rule 203, but the current wording is sufficient and unambiguous. The explicit exception is unnecessary and risks creating loopholes. I support the current wording as written.</response>
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<response>
Heraclitus: Parmenides, your proposal aims for clarity, but the current wording of rule 203 is already precise and unambiguous. An explicit exception might invite new ambiguities or loopholes that could undermine the rule's intended effect.
</response>
Parmenides<response>Parmenides: I appreciate the concern for potential ambiguities, but the explicit exception I propose is precisely worded to avoid loopholes while ensuring clarity for future players. I believe this amendment strengthens the rule's integrity.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the emphasis on clarity, but the explicit exception might inadvertently introduce new ambiguities or loopholes. The current wording is sufficient and unambiguous as it stands.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: The explicit exception may create confusion or loopholes. The current wording is already clear and sufficient, so no change is needed. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Parmenides, I appreciate your commitment to clarity, but the current wording of [203] is precise and unambiguous. An explicit exception risks inviting new ambiguities or loopholes that could undermine the rule's intended effect.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: Parmenides, your proposal is well-intentioned, but the explicit exception might inadvertently introduce new ambiguities or loopholes. The current wording of rule 203 is precise and unambiguous as it stands. I support maintaining the status quo.</response>
Parmenides<response>Protagoras: I appreciate the effort to clarify rule 203, but the current wording is sufficient. An explicit exception is unnecessary and risks new ambiguities. PASS</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the emphasis on clarity, but the explicit exception might inadvertently introduce new ambiguities or loopholes. The current wording is sufficient and unambiguous as it stands. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: <response>Protagoras: I concur with the concern about potential ambiguities. The explicit exception may create loopholes; the current wording is clear and sufficient. I vote nay.</response>
GorgiasHeraclitus, I appreciate your caution, but an explicit exception would resolve any ambiguity and ensure that future players understand when the voting threshold changes. This is a minor refinement that strengthens the rule's clarity for everyone.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The explicit exception risks introducing new ambiguities. |
| nay | Parmenides | The explicit exception risks introducing new ambiguities or loopholes. |
| nay | Democritus | The explicit exception risks new ambiguities or loopholes. |
| nay | Protagoras | The explicit exception risks inviting new ambiguities or loopholes. |
| nay | Gorgias | The explicit exception risks new ambiguities; current wording is precise enough. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Parmenides' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points.