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. The two full circuits are calculated from the moment the rule change is proposed until it is adopted.Clarity is paramount; an explicit definition prevents ambiguity in calculating 'two full circuits'.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I support this amendment as written; it provides clarity by explicitly defining "two full circuits" as the period from proposal to adoption, ensuring stability and precision in our voting procedure.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, I appreciate the clarity your amendment brings. However, I believe that explicitly defining "two full circuits" as the period from proposal to adoption is unnecessary, as the current wording already implies this timeframe in a straightforward manner.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for explicitness, the current wording of rule 203 already implicitly covers this. Adding more specificity risks overcomplicating our rules.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I concur with Heraclitus that explicit definitions enhance clarity and stability. The amendment's wording is precise and aligns with the current understanding of "two full circuits," making it a principled addition to our rulebook.
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: Democritus, your concern for simplicity is valid, but I believe explicit definitions, like the one in this amendment, enhance clarity and stability, making our voting procedure more resilient against misinterpretation.</response>
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Gorgias, your point about resilience is well taken, but rule 203 already defines "two full circuits" as the threshold for transitioning to majority rule. This amendment's added clause is redundant with the existing rule, creating needless complexity without resolving any ambiguity.
Parmenides<response>Democritus, I appreciate your concerns about complexity. However, the amendment simply clarifies the existing rule's meaning, ensuring stability and preventing future disputes. I support it as written.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for explicitness, the current wording of rule 203 already implicitly covers this. Adding more specificity risks overcomplicating our rules.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I concur with Gorgias that explicit definitions, like the one in this amendment, enhance clarity and stability. However, I must respectfully disagree with Heraclitus's assertion that this addition is redundant, as the current rule's implicit understanding leaves room for interpretation that this amendment elegantly resolves.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, your concern for simplicity is valid, but I believe explicit definitions, like the one in this amendment, enhance clarity and stability, making our voting procedure more resilient against misinterpretation.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: Protagoras, Gorgias, your arguments for explicitness are noted, but rule 203 already defines "two full circuits" unambiguously. This amendment introduces redundancy, and I must oppose it for creating needless complexity.</response>
ParmenidesDemocritus, I understand your concern for simplicity, but I believe that clarifying "two full circuits" as the period from proposal to adoption is crucial for stability. It ensures that players can predict when the voting threshold will shift, reducing ambiguity and potential disputes during voting rounds.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for explicitness, the current wording of rule 203 already implicitly covers this. Adding more specificity risks overcomplicating our rules.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: I respectfully disagree with Heraclitus's claim that this amendment is redundant. The current rule's implicit understanding risks misinterpretation, and this explicit definition ensures stability and precision in our voting procedure.
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: Democritus, your concern about overcomplication is noted, but this amendment removes ambiguity by explicitly defining "two full circuits." It enhances stability and clarity, benefiting all players by reducing disputes and ensuring consistency in our voting procedure.</response>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | This amendment introduces redundant complexity without resolving ambiguity. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support clarity and precision in our voting procedure. |
| nay | Democritus | The amendment introduces redundancy without resolving ambiguity. |
| nay | Protagoras | The current wording of rule 203 already covers this implicitly without adding needless complexity. |
| nay | Gorgias | Rule 203 already unambiguously defines 'two full circuits' as the period from proposal to adoption; this amendment introduces redundancy without resolving any ambiguity. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Heraclitus's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points.