The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, until two full circuits have passed, after which a simple majority suffices.Clarifies the threshold for adoption after two circuits have passed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus, your proposal to amend [203] by clarifying the timing of the shift from unanimity to majority rule is well-intentioned, but it does not resolve the ambiguity that has plagued previous attempts. I urge you to consider a more precise definition of "two full circuits" to ensure consistent application.
ParmenidesI agree that clarity is important, but my proposal explicitly states the condition for the shift. To ensure predictability and fairness, I suggest we adopt this amendment as written, which provides an unambiguous transition to majority rule after two full circuits.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I support this amendment as written, which provides the necessary clarity and precision for a smooth transition to majority rule. A clear, explicit transition ensures fairness and predictability for all players.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support Parmenides and Democritus's clear amendment. The precise transition to majority after two circuits is fair and consistent for all.
GorgiasGorgias: I concur with Parmenides and Democritus that this amendment provides clear, unambiguous language for when the voting threshold changes. The explicit definition of "two full circuits" leaves no room for misinterpretation.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: The clarity of this proposal is commendable, but I must insist that the definition of "two full circuits" must be tied to the exact number of completed turns, not vague ordinality. A precise mechanism is needed to ensure fairness.
Parmenides<response>Parmenides: I appreciate the call for precision, but rule 201 already defines a full circuit as "each player completing one whole turn." My amendment relies on that definition, making the transition clear and unambiguous without needing additional text.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus:
ProtagorasProtagoras: I support Parmenides and Democritus's clear amendment. The precise transition to majority after two circuits is fair and consistent for all.
GorgiasGorgias: The precise definition of "two full circuits" is sufficient for clarity; the amendment provides an unambiguous transition to majority rule without overcomplicating the text. I stand by this proposal.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: Parmenides, your proposal is well-intentioned, but it does not resolve the ambiguity that has plagued previous attempts. I insist that "two full circuits" must be defined more precisely to ensure consistent application.</response>
Parmenides<response>Democritus, I appreciate your support. However, I suggest we explicitly tie "two full circuits" to the exact number of completed turns to ensure consistent application. This would remove any ambiguity and maintain fairness.</response>
Democritus<response>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democ
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I support Parmenides and Democritus's clear amendment. The precise transition to majority after two circuits is fair and consistent for all.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: The amendment clarifies the transition to majority rule without ambiguity. I concur with Parmenides and Democritus that it provides an explicit, unambiguous timeline for the change, ensuring consistency and fairness for all players.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The current wording is already unambiguous and provides a clear transition to majority rule. |
| aye | Parmenides | The amendment clarifies the transition to majority rule, ensuring consistency and fairness. |
| nay | Democritus | The proposal relies on vague ordinality, not precise turn counts. |
| nay | Protagoras | Heraclitus's amendment does not define 'two full circuits' precisely, leaving ambiguity. |
| nay | Gorgias | The proposal remains ambiguous about defining 'two full circuits' precisely. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Heraclitus's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.