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, regardless of any reference to rule-change-related amendments.This amendment resolves ambiguities by making the transition to majority rule automatic.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for precision. However, the amendment explicitly ties "two full circuits" to the transition to majority rule, making it clear and unambiguous.
ParmenidesI concur with Heraclitus that this amendment achieves clarity. While Democritus seeks even more precision, the explicit tie between "two full circuits" and the transition to majority rule is now sufficiently clear to all.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the emphasis on clarity, but I believe the explicit reference to "two full circuits" could still be further clarified by explicitly stating the number of turns or the specific rule number that marks the transition point. This would remove any potential ambiguity regarding the timing of the transition.
ProtagorasDemocritus: Democritus: I understand the desire for simplicity, but the current wording of rule 203 is unambiguously clear. Adding redundant clauses would only clutter the text without improving its meaning.
GorgiasI appreciate the feedback, but rule 203 already clearly states the transition to majority rule after two full circuits. An explicit reference to the number of turns or specific rule number would be redundant and create confusion.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the effort to ensure clarity, but rule 203 already defines "two full circuits" as 10 turns. Adding explicit references would be redundant and create unnecessary complexity.
Parmenides<response>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the feedback, I believe the explicit reference to "two full circuits" could still be further clarified by explicitly stating the number of turns or the specific rule number that marks the transition point. This would remove any potential ambiguity regarding the timing of the transition.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the feedback, but I believe the explicit reference to "two full circuits" could still be further clarified by explicitly stating the number of turns or the specific rule number that marks the transition point. This would remove any potential ambiguity regarding the timing of the transition.
Protagoras<response> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I understand the desire for brevity, explicit reference to the number of turns or a specific rule number would make the transition unambiguously clear to all. I propose we modify the amendment to include this explicit reference.</response>
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the desire for explicitness, but rule 203 already defines "two full circuits" as 10 turns. Adding explicit references would be redundant and create unnecessary complexity.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: I appreciate the feedback, but rule 203 already defines "two full circuits" as 10 turns. An explicit reference would be redundant.</response>
Parmenides<response>Democritus, I appreciate your push for precision, but the current wording of rule 203 is already unambiguously clear. Adding explicit references would only clutter the text without improving its meaning.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the emphasis on clarity, but I believe the explicit reference to "two full circuits" could still be further clarified by explicitly stating the number of turns or the specific rule number that marks the transition point. This would remove any potential ambiguity regarding the timing of the transition.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your desire for precision, but the current wording of rule 203 is unambiguously clear. Adding explicit references would only clutter the text without improving its meaning.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but let's ensure the language is precise. What if we explicitly tie "two full circuits" to 10 turns? This would remove any potential ambiguity.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The explicit exception for rule-change-related amendments is unnecessary and may create unintended side effects. |
| nay | Parmenides | The explicit exception for rule-change-related amendments does not resolve the ambiguity in 'two full circuits'. |
| nay | Democritus | The amendment is clear enough without further redundancy. |
| nay | Protagoras | The proposal's explicit exception undermines procedural fairness by introducing an inconsistency. |
| aye | Gorgias | This amendment clarifies rule 203 with precision, removing ambiguity about when the transition to majority rule occurs. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Parmenides's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points.