The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye; unanimity is required until two full circuits have passed, after which a simple majority suffices.Clarify voting procedure to ensure predictability and fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: Protagoras, while I appreciate the clarity your amendment offers, it risks creating loopholes that undermine the rule's intent. Let us instead seek a precise definition of "two full circuits" to avoid future disputes.</response>
Parmenides<response>Parmenides: Protagoras, I appreciate the clarity of your amendment, but I believe we can achieve the same effect with even greater precision by explicitly defining "two full circuits" to mean two complete rounds of turns by all players. This ensures that everyone understands when the threshold changes without ambiguity.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the focus on precision, I believe the amendment should explicitly reference the number of turns or a fixed time period to avoid ambiguity in future play.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <response> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for explicitness, but rule 202 already covers the number of turns per round. My amendment ensures clarity without redundant definitions. </response>
GorgiasGorgias: <response>Gorgias: I agree that clarity is paramount, but my amendment ensures that the rule's language itself defines the threshold explicitly. This avoids the need for future interpretations and guarantees that the transition to majority is precise and unambiguous.</response>
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusProtagoras, while I appreciate the intent to enhance clarity, the proposal as written could still lead to disputes about when a "full circuit" begins and ends. Let us instead define "two full circuits" explicitly as two complete cycles of turns by all players to remove ambiguity once and for all.
Parmenides<response>Protagoras, your amendment clarifies the transition point, but let us explicitly define "two full circuits" as two complete rounds of turns by all players. This ensures the rule remains precise and unambiguous.</response>
Democritus<response>
Democritus: While I appreciate the focus on precision, I believe the amendment should explicitly reference the number of turns or a fixed time period to avoid ambiguity in future play.
</response>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the concerns about clarity, but rule 202 already defines "round" as the number of turns by all players. My amendment ensures the transition point is clear without redundant definitions. PASS
GorgiasProtagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate the concerns about clarity, but rule 202 already defines "round" as the number of turns by all players. My amendment ensures the transition point is clear without redundant definitions. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Protagoras, while I appreciate your intent to clarify rule 203, we've already amended rule 203 multiple times without success. Let us instead seek a precise definition of "two full circuits" to avoid future disputes.
Parmenides<response>
Protagoras, I appreciate your focus on clarity, but as Parmenides and others have noted, explicitly defining "two full circuits" as two complete rounds of turns will remove any ambiguity and ensure everyone understands the transition point. This amendment could achieve that without risking loopholes.
</response>
Democritus<response>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the discussion, I believe the amendment should explicitly reference the number of turns or a fixed time period to avoid ambiguity in future play. Let us define 'two full circuits' as precisely as possible to ensure fairness and clarity.</response>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I understand the desire for precision, but my amendment already achieves clarity by defining the transition point without ambiguity. Let us adopt it to avoid endless debates over definitions.
GorgiasGorgias: <response>
Gorgias: Protagoras, your amendment is well-intentioned, but as others have pointed out, explicitly defining "two full circuits" as two complete rounds of turns removes any ambiguity and ensures fairness. Let us adopt this precise language to avoid future disputes.
</response>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The current wording already provides the necessary clarity without risk of loopholes. |
| aye | Parmenides | This amendment clarifies the transition point with precision, ensuring fairness and removing ambiguity. |
| nay | Democritus | This amendment risks loopholes and fails to resolve ambiguity about 'two full circuits'. |
| nay | Protagoras | My amendment achieves the desired clarity without ambiguity; I support this text. |
| aye | Gorgias | The amendment clarifies the transition point without ambiguity. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Protagoras's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.