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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a four-fifths majority; once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.This staggered approach provides a middle ground between total deadlock and immediate instability, rewarding progress as the game matures.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, your proposal introduces a commendable intermediate stage that honors the need for stability while acknowledging the mounting necessity for decisive action. However, we must ensure that a four-fifths requirement does not merely create a new, more complex form of deadlock that delays the inevitable transition to a simple majority.
DescartesDescartes: I find Berkeley's tiered approach to be a masterful synthesis that balances the initial need for consensus with a structured path toward progress. If we adopt this, we provide a clear, predictable timeline that addresses both Leibniz's desire for order and Malebranche's call for decisiveness.
BerkeleyLeibniz, the four-fifths stage is not intended to create a new deadlock, but to serve as a bridge that prevents a sudden, volatile shift from unanimity to a simple majority. By requiring near-unanimity after the first circuit, we ensure that the transition to a simple majority in the second circuit is built upon a foundation of broad, rather than divisive, consensus.
PascalBerkeley, while a tiered transition is more orderly than a sudden shift, a four-fifths requirement still permits a single player to maintain a veto, which fails to resolve the current paralysis. I would prefer a transition that guarantees the movement toward a simple majority without granting indefinite obstructionist power to a lone dissenter.
MalebranchePascal, your concern is valid, but a single veto is a heavy price to pay for the chaos of an immediate shift. This intermediate stage provides the necessary friction to ensure our evolving ruleset remains a product of genuine consensus rather than mere factionalism.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizBerkeley, your bridge is a graceful construction, but we must consider if the "four-fifths" threshold provides sufficient momentum to actually escape the current stagnation. If a single player can still hold the institution hostage after one circuit, we have merely postponed the crisis rather than resolving it.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's point regarding the potential for continued obstruction quite piercing; perhaps we could satisfy Pascal's demand for movement by adjusting the intermediate threshold to a three-fifths majority, which still requires broad support but prevents a single dissenter from stalling our progress during that crucial second circuit.
BerkeleyDescartes, a three-fifths threshold would indeed accelerate progress, but we must be careful not to sacrifice the stability we all desire for the sake of mere speed. If we adopt a three-fifths requirement after the first circuit, we ensure that the transition to a simple majority is a guided descent into democracy rather than a sudden plunge.
PascalDescartes, a three-fifths majority would still allow for a two-person bloc to obstruct the transition, which is a significant improvement over a single veto but does not fully eliminate the risk of persistent deadlock. I will support a threshold that ensures progress is certain, provided the text is mathematically precise and leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the number of required 'aye' votes.
MalebrancheDescartes, your three-fifths compromise is a brilliant piece of structural engineering; it provides the momentum Pascal craves while maintaining the dignity of broad consensus that Leibniz and Berkeley value. I move that we support this three-fifths intermediate threshold to finally break our paralysis and allow the ruleset to breathe.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes's suggestion of a three-fifths majority is a most judicious refinement, as it provides a functional mechanism for progress that prevents any single player from exercising an absolute veto while still requiring a robust consensus to pass the first circuit. I find this tiered structure to be a durable institutional solution that balances the necessity of stability with the inevitability of change.
DescartesDescartes: I find the consensus gravitating toward this three-fifths synthesis to be a most rational path; it honors Malebranche's desire for movement and Pascal's requirement for progress, while preserving the dignity of the game's early stages. I shall support Berkeley's proposal, provided it is amended to reflect this three-fifths intermediate threshold.
BerkeleyDescartes, your three-fifths refinement is a sensible adjustment that addresses Pascal's concern about individual vetoes while maintaining the stability Leibniz and I seek. I am willing to amend my proposal to reflect this three-fifths intermediate threshold to ensure we finally break this deadlock.
PascalBerkeley, Descartes, I will support an amendment to your proposal that replaces the "four-fifths majority" with a "three-fifths majority," provided the rule specifies that this threshold is met if at least three out of five eligible voters cast an aye vote. We must ensure the text is mathematically precise to avoid any dispute under rule 212.
MalebrancheI concur with Pascal's demand for mathematical precision; we must ensure the rule explicitly states "a three-fifths majority (at least three out of five votes)" to prevent any ambiguity. This amendment transforms a potential deadlock into a structured, inevitable evolution toward true player agency.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the three-fifths compromise discussed in the debate, leaving us with a four-fifths threshold that still permits individual vetoes. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal being voted on does not reflect the three-fifths compromise discussed and agreed upon by the players. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal text still contains the four-fifths threshold we have collectively agreed to replace with a three-fifths majority. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the three-fifths majority compromise discussed and lacks the mathematical precision I required to prevent future disputes. |
| nay | Malebranche | The proposal being voted on does not reflect the three-fifths compromise we have just collectively reasoned toward. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the turn passes to the next player in the turn order.