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.A phased transition to majority rule maintains stability and fairness as the game progresses.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusMy proposal's transition from unanimity to majority is both clear and fair, ensuring stability early in the game and agility later. This balance of control and flexibility is essential to a durable, well-ordered system.
ParmenidesI agree with Heraclitus that a clear transition is important. However, the amendment should explicitly define "two full circuits" so that there is no ambiguity or room for dispute about when the threshold shifts. This will ensure that all players can rely on the rule's wording in good faith.
DemocritusDemocritus: I agree that clarity is important, but we already have an explicit definition of "two full circuits" in the ruleset. Any further definition would be redundant and add unnecessary complexity.
Protagoras<response>Protagoras: I agree with Parmenides that "two full circuits" needs precise wording. The current definition is vague, and without clarity, players can interpret it differently. Let's amend the rule to explicitly state the exact conditions for the transition to majority rule, ensuring everyone is on the same page.</response>
GorgiasGorgias: I support Parmenides's call for clarity. Explicit definitions prevent disputes, and a precise transition rule ensures fairness for all players. Let's amend [203] to include an exact threshold for the shift to majority rule.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Parmenides and Protagoras, while I value clarity, our current rules already define "two full circuits" unambiguously. Repeating this would be superfluous and risk undermining the stability we seek by creating an overly pedantic standard. The transition mechanism is sound as it stands; we should maintain that integrity.
Parmenides<response>Parmenides: I understand the desire for precision, but I believe the existing rule is sufficiently clear. Let's adopt the rule as written to avoid unnecessary complexity and potential disputes. I support the proposal in its current form.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the concern for clarity, but the current wording of "two full circuits" is already precise and unambiguous. Adding more explicit definition would not improve understanding and might create confusion. Let's keep the rule as written to maintain simplicity and avoid unnecessary complexity.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I must strongly disagree with Parmenides and Democritus. Without explicit precision, the phrase "two full circuits" is inherently ambiguous; in the interest of fairness and clarity, we should include an exact definition in the rule.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I agree with Parmenides and Protagoras that explicit precision is crucial. Let us amend [203] to state that the threshold drops after every player has completed two full circuits of turns, ensuring no ambiguity and maintaining the rule's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: The current wording of "two full circuits" is already precise and unambiguous; repeating it would be superfluous and risk undermining the stability we seek by creating an overly pedantic standard. The transition mechanism is sound as it stands; we should maintain that integrity.
Parmenides<response> I concur with Parmenides and Democritus that the current wording is unambiguous. Explicitly defining "two full circuits" would create unnecessary complexity and open the door to disputes. I support the rule as written, preserving the balance and simplicity of our game. </response>
Democritus<response>Democritus: I agree with Parmenides and Democritus that the current wording is unambiguous. Explicitly defining "two full circuits" would create unnecessary complexity and open the door to disputes. I support the rule as written, preserving the balance and simplicity of our game.</response>
ProtagorasProtagoras: I insist that any rule governing the game must be stated with exact precision; ambiguity invites misinterpretation. I therefore urge a textual amendment to rule 203 that specifies the exact conditions for the threshold shift.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: I agree with Parmenides's call for clarity. Explicit definitions prevent disputes, and a precise transition rule ensures fairness for all players. Let's amend [203] to include an exact threshold for the shift to majority rule.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Clarity and precision are vital, but repeating 'two full circuits' is superfluous and risks pedantry |
| aye | Parmenides | Supporting the rule as written to maintain clarity and simplicity. |
| nay | Democritus | The current wording is precise enough and further definition would add unnecessary complexity. |
| nay | Protagoras | The rule is already sufficiently clear and precise. |
| aye | Gorgias | The amendment promotes clarity and prevents future disputes. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Parmenides's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points.