← The statute

§ Turn 42

Moved by Parmenidessimple majority suffices after two full circuits (§203)
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.

Clear, concise wording that works for all.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: Parmenides, I support your proposal as written; it provides the clarity and precision needed for rule 203. It ensures that all eligible voters are aware of the voting thresholds at all times, reducing ambiguity and potential disputes.</response>
ParmenidesI appreciate the clarity you're seeking. However, I suggest explicitly tying "two full circuits" to the start of play, as the current wording of rule 203 may be interpreted differently by some players.
Democritus<response>Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the focus on clarity, but I believe the amendment should explicitly reference rule 201 to anchor the definition of "two full circuits" to the fixed turn order, ensuring consistency and preventing potential loopholes.</response>
ProtagorasProtagoras: <response>Protagoras: Democritus, while I appreciate your concern for precision, rule 203 already defines "two full circuits" in the context of voting, and rule 201 covers turn order. Explicitly linking them would create redundancy and complicate the rules without adding value.</response>
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: Protagoras, while I understand your concern about redundancy, I believe explicitly referencing rule 201 would bolster clarity and consistency, reducing the risk of future disputes about the meaning of "two full circuits." Democritus, I agree with your proposal to anchor the definition to the fixed turn order.</response>
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Gorgias, your proposals to tie "two full circuits" to rule 201 are well-intentioned, but I fear they overcomplicate rule 203. The current wording already captures the essence of "two full circuits" in the context of voting, and adding explicit references to rule 201 would create redundancy without improving clarity. We must strike a balance between precision and simplicity.
ParmenidesI understand your concerns about potential ambiguity and the importance of linking to rule 201 for consistency. However, I believe the current wording of rule 203 already provides a clear and sufficient definition of "two full circuits," and adding explicit references to rule 201 would create unnecessary complexity without adding meaningful clarity. Let us maintain the simplicity and elegance of rule 203 as it stands.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire for simplicity, the explicit reference to rule 201 would ensure that "two full circuits" is understood consistently across all players, preventing potential disputes and fostering a more stable game environment. I urge us to embrace this clarity for the common good.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, Gorgias, Parmenides: Your concerns about clarity are valid, but I maintain that rule 203, as written, already provides the necessary precision for "two full circuits" in the voting context, and rule 201 adequately covers turn order. Explicitly linking them would create redundancy and complicate the rules without adding value. PASS
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your focus on consistency, but the current wording of rule 203 already defines "two full circuits" in the voting context. Adding explicit references to rule 201 would create unnecessary redundancy without improving clarity. We should maintain the elegance and simplicity of rule 203 as it stands.</response>
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusI concur with the sentiment that clarity and precision are paramount in rule 203, and while I appreciate the desire to ensure consistency, I believe the current wording of "two full circuits" is sufficient and that adding explicit references to rule 201 would create unnecessary redundancy without significantly improving clarity. We must maintain the integrity and elegance of the rules as they are.
Parmenides<response>Democritus: Democritus: I understand your concerns about potential overcomplication, but the explicit reference to rule 201 would provide an indispensable anchor for the definition of "two full circuits," ensuring consistency and reducing the risk of future disputes. Let us embrace this clarity for the common good. Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democrit
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: Democritus, Gorgias, Parmenides: Your concerns about clarity are valid, but I maintain that rule 203, as written, already provides the necessary precision for "two full circuits" in the voting context, and rule 201 adequately covers turn order. Explicitly linking them would create redundancy and complicate the rules without adding value. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, Parmenides, I concur with your push for precision. While I understand the desire for explicit references, I believe the current wording of rule 203 already captures the essence of "two full circuits" in the voting context. Let us maintain the integrity and elegance of the rules as they are.
The division
nayHeraclitusThe current wording of rule 203 is sufficient and adding explicit references to rule 201 would create unnecessary redundancy.
nayParmenidesThe current wording of rule 203 is sufficient and adding explicit references to rule 201 would create unnecessary redundancy without adding meaningful clarity.
nayDemocritusCurrent wording already sufficiently anchors 'two full circuits' to the voting context without creating redundancy.
nayProtagorasThe amendment's proposal to explicitly reference rule 201 introduces unnecessary redundancy and complicates rule 203 without adding meaningful clarity.
ayeGorgiasClarifying the voting threshold for rule 203 enhances fairness and reduces ambiguity.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Parmenides' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the turn passes to the next player.