The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through three full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.Extending the period of unanimity to three circuits provides more stability before transitioning to majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile I appreciate Pascal's desire to extend the period of stability, lengthening the requirement for unanimity may inadvertently lead to stagnation if the players cannot reach a consensus. A three-circuit threshold risks entrenching a deadlock that prevents the ruleset from evolving when it is most needed.
DescartesI find Leibniz's concern regarding stagnation quite valid, as a three-circuit requirement may delay necessary evolution for too long. However, if we find a middle ground—perhaps a transition after two and a half circuits or a tiered majority system—we might satisfy both the desire for stability and the need for progress.
BerkeleyPascal, while extending the stability period offers more time for consensus, it risks a permanent deadlock where no one can move the game forward. I would rather we reach the majority threshold sooner to ensure the ruleset remains a living, breathing entity rather than a frozen monument.
PascalMy proposal seeks to ensure that the initial period of unanimity is not exhausted by impulsive or poorly drafted changes, providing a more robust foundation for the ruleset's evolution. I am open to discussing a specific number of turns if a circuit-based metric proves too imprecise for the current state of play.
MalebranchePascal, your caution is noble, but three circuits is a sentence of stagnation that risks turning our game into a graveyard of failed ideas. Let us not build a fortress so thick that no light of reform can ever penetrate it; we need evolution, not an endless period of paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizWhile I respect Pascal's commitment to a robust foundation, we must distinguish between a foundation and a prison; increasing the requirement to three circuits merely compounds the risk of the very stagnation we have already witnessed in recent turns. I would urge the proposer to reconsider, for a ruleset that cannot be changed is a ruleset that cannot survive.
DescartesI find myself agreeing with the collective sentiment that three circuits may indeed invite the paralysis Malebranche fears. Perhaps we could instead consider a compromise where the threshold drops to a supermajority—say, a two-thirds vote—after two circuits, before finally reaching a simple majority after three?
BerkeleyDescartes, your tiered supermajority proposal is a fascinating structural compromise that could bridge the gap between stability and progress. Pascal, I urge you to consider if such a middle path—a two-thirds threshold after two circuits—might satisfy your need for caution without the paralysis of a third circuit.
PascalDescartes's tiered supermajority is a structurally sound compromise that respects the principle of gradualism. If a two-thirds threshold after two circuits can be precisely codified to prevent ambiguity, I will consider it a superior alternative to my current proposal.
MalebrancheDescartes's tiered approach is the elegant evolution we require; it offers a middle ground between the rigidity of unanimity and the potential volatility of a simple majority. Pascal, if you adopt this two-thirds threshold at the two-circuit mark, you secure the stability you crave without condemning us to the paralysis of a third circuit.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizDescartes's tiered approach is a masterful synthesis that honors the necessity of both stability and movement. I would support such an amendment, as it replaces the threat of paralysis with a measured, graduated transition toward democratic utility.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus gravitating toward my tiered proposal, and I believe Pascal’s willingness to consider it signals a path to unity. Pascal, if you would be willing to amend your proposal to incorporate this two-thirds transition after two circuits, I believe we can secure the votes of Leibniz, Berkeley, and Malebranche to ensure a successful adoption.
BerkeleyPascal, I believe Descartes's tiered approach is the most rational path to avoid the deadlock of three circuits while respecting your desire for a robust foundation. If you amend your proposal to include a two-thirds majority threshold after two circuits, I will gladly cast my vote in its favor.
PascalI accept Descartes's tiered compromise; I will amend the proposal to require a two-thirds majority after two circuits, followed by a simple majority after three. This provides the graduated stability I seek while preventing the stagnation the others fear.
MalebranchePascal, your willingness to adopt Descartes's tiered transition is a triumph of reason over inertia. By integrating a two-thirds supermajority at the two-circuit mark, we transform a potential deadlock into a structured ascent toward true democratic utility.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal fails to incorporate the tiered supermajority compromise that would ensure the ruleset's survival. |
| nay | Descartes | I cannot support a three-circuit requirement when the consensus has clearly shifted toward my proposed tiered transition at two circuits. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal as written still imposes a three-circuit requirement, ignoring the tiered two-thirds compromise discussed. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal's text contradicts the discussion's agreed-upon tiered compromise. |
| nay | Malebranche | The amendment fails to incorporate the tiered two-thirds compromise discussed, and I will not vote for the very stagnation we just agreed to avoid. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Pascal's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the turn ends.