The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of those voting vote aye, except that for the first two full circuits of every player, a rule change must be adopted by unanimous consent to be enacted.I am refining Leibniz's failed attempt at a cost-based repeal into a more direct amendment to the voting threshold to facilitate smoother early-game progression.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile I respect the desire for greater efficiency, Descartes's inversion of the rule risks a period of early instability where a single dissenter can paralyze the institution before the majority threshold is even established. It would be more prudent to maintain the current gradual transition to ensure the ruleset is built upon a foundation of consensus rather than sudden, potentially volatile shifts.
DescartesLeibniz, I hear your concern regarding early instability, but my intent is to accelerate the transition to a workable majority. If we find the unanimity requirement too stifling for progress, perhaps we could consider a middle ground, such as reducing the required circuits from two to one?
BerkeleyDescartes, your inversion actually creates the same paralysis we currently face, just with a different timeline. If we want to increase the game's velocity without sacrificing the stability of our early consensus, I suggest we move toward his middle ground of reducing the required circuits to one, rather than flipping the logic entirely.
PascalDescartes's proposal is logically unsound; by requiring unanimity during the first two circuits, he merely preserves the current paralysis while delaying the transition to majority rule. I support Berkeley's suggestion to reduce the threshold to one circuit, as it preserves the principle of initial consensus while providing a clear, predictable path to democratic utility.
MalebrancheDescartes, your inversion is a distinction without a difference; we remain trapped in a stalemate regardless of the direction of the shift. I side with Berkeley and Pascal: let us reduce the requirement to one circuit to reward early consensus with swift, democratic evolution.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizWhile I find Berkeley's suggestion of a single circuit more efficient than Descartes's inversion, I must caution that reducing the consensus period too rapidly may invite premature volatility. I am willing to support Berkeley's amendment to a single circuit, provided we recognize that the stability of our institutions relies upon the quality of the rules established during that initial period of unanimity.
DescartesI accept Berkeley's refinement as a superior synthesis; it addresses the paralysis while respecting the need for an initial period of consensus. I will withdraw my inversion in favor of an amendment to [203] that reduces the required circuits from two to one.
BerkeleySince we have achieved a consensus on the direction of the change, I propose we formalize Descartes's withdrawal by moving to vote on the amended wording: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting."
PascalI concur with Berkeley's formalization; the reduction to one circuit provides a predictable transition that balances the necessity of initial consensus with the requirement for procedural progress. I will vote aye on this specific wording.
MalebrancheThe synthesis proposed by Berkeley is elegant and far more constructive than Descartes's initial inversion. I support this amendment to ensure our evolution is both purposeful and timely.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizThe consensus on a single circuit is a sensible compromise that preserves the dignity of initial unanimity while preventing indefinite stagnation. I shall vote aye on Berkeley's formulation, as it provides the stability I require with the progress the table clearly demands.
DescartesI find Berkeley's synthesis to be the most rational path forward, as it honors the spirit of my original intent to accelerate progress while respecting the caution expressed by Leibniz. I move to close debate and proceed to a vote on Berkeley's exact wording.
BerkeleyThe consensus is clear: we seek a path that respects early stability while preventing the stagnation of an indefinite unanimity requirement. I support the proposed wording as it provides the most balanced transition for the collective good.
PascalThe wording proposed by Berkeley is precise and adheres to the procedural standards required by rule 106. I find no logical or procedural reason to oppose this specific text and support its immediate adoption.
MalebrancheThe consensus on a single circuit is a triumph of reform over stagnation; it preserves the sanctity of our founding agreements while ensuring the game does not choke on its own inertia. I support Berkeley's wording in its entirety.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The wording being voted upon is not the refined synthesis of one circuit agreed upon during debate, violating the principle of voting on a clear and settled text. |
| nay | Descartes | I have already withdrawn my inversion in favor of Berkeley's superior synthesis of a single-circuit transition. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal being voted on is not the specific wording we have just reached a consensus to adopt. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal being voted on does not match the wording Berkeley formalized and the players reached consensus upon during debate. |
| nay | Malebranche | I support Berkeley's superior synthesis of a single circuit, whereas this text merely preserves the current paralysis through two circuits. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Descartes' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the turn passes to the next player in the sequence.