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 simple majority of those voting.Reducing the threshold to one circuit provides a clear, non-negotiable transition to majority rule to prevent permanent deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile reducing the requirement to a single circuit offers a swifter transition to democratic utility, we must ensure that the initial period of unanimity is long enough to establish a stable foundation for the ruleset. I am inclined to support this acceleration, provided we acknowledge it represents a significant shift in the balance between stability and progress.
DescartesDescartes: I find Pascal's proposal to be a courageous attempt to break our current paralysis, and I believe it strikes a more efficient balance than the two-circuit requirement. If we can agree that one circuit provides sufficient stability, I am prepared to support this acceleration toward a more functional democracy.
BerkeleyPascal, your proposal is a pragmatic middle ground that addresses our current stagnation without immediately discarding the protective layer of unanimity. Since we have already completed one full circuit, this amendment would trigger the democratic shift almost immediately, allowing us to finally move the game forward.
PascalThe current deadlock is a direct consequence of the two-circuit requirement, and since one circuit has already elapsed, this amendment provides the most immediate and procedurally sound method to restore functionality to the game. I maintain that a single circuit is sufficient to establish the ruleset's initial integrity before transitioning to a majority-based system.
MalebranchePascal, your proposal is the elegant surgical strike we need to excise this paralysis; since the first circuit is already complete, we are effectively voting to unlock the game's evolution right now. I support this acceleration, as a ruleset that cannot move is a ruleset that is already dead.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Since the first circuit is indeed complete, Pascal’s amendment would transform our current unanimous requirement into a simple majority requirement effectively immediately. While I favor the restoration of progress, we must be mindful that such a swift transition removes the protective buffer we all seemed to desire for the ruleset's early maturity.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's caution regarding the loss of a "buffer" to be well-taken, yet given our current stagnation, the risk of a swift transition is far outweighed by the certainty of our continued paralysis. If we adopt Pascal's proposal, we do not abandon stability, but rather recognize that we have already collectively navigated the initial period of establishing the ruleset's integrity.
BerkeleyLeibniz, your concern for a "buffer" is noted, but we have already spent eight turns in paralysis; a buffer that prevents all movement is merely a tomb. Since the first circuit is complete, Pascal's proposal is the most efficient way to restore the game's vitality and ensure that the ruleset can actually evolve.
PascalLeibniz, your concern for a "buffer" is a luxury we cannot afford while we languish in a state of permanent inertia. Since the first circuit has passed, the buffer has already served its purpose; to extend it further is to prioritize a theoretical stability over the actual existence of a functioning game.
MalebrancheLeibniz, your "buffer" is a ghost that haunts a graveyard; we have already proven that unanimity in this room is a recipe for stagnation rather than stability. I urge you to join us in voting for Pascal's amendment, for the first circuit is behind us and the necessity of motion is before us.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: While I fear the suddenness of this shift, I recognize that a rule that cannot be changed is a rule that cannot endure; therefore, I shall support Pascal's amendment to restore the vital mechanism of progress.
DescartesDescartes: I find myself in complete agreement with Leibniz's ultimate concession; since the first circuit has indeed concluded, Pascal's amendment is the most rational way to honor the stability we have already established while finally unlocking the engine of progress. I cast my support to this proposal, as the risk of continued inertia now poses a greater threat to the game than a swift transition to majority rule.
BerkeleyLeibniz and Descartes have both conceded that the current paralysis is a greater threat than the loss of a buffer, and since the first circuit is complete, this is the most efficient path to functional play. I support Pascal's amendment to restore the game's vitality.
PascalThe consensus is clear: the necessity of procedural motion now supersedes the desire for a theoretical buffer. I move that we close debate and proceed to a vote to restore the game's ability to evolve.
MalebrancheThe consensus is absolute; the "buffer" has served its purpose and has become a shroud. I move to close debate and adopt Pascal's amendment to unlock our capacity for reform.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The first circuit has concluded, and the necessity of breaking this paralysis to allow for institutional evolution outweighs the desire for a redundant buffer. |
| aye | Descartes | The first circuit has concluded, and the risk of continued paralysis now outweighs the need for any further stability buffer. |
| aye | Berkeley | The first circuit is complete, and we must end this paralysis to allow the game to function. |
| aye | Pascal | The first circuit is complete, and the current requirement for unanimity has rendered the ruleset incapable of evolution. |
| aye | Malebranche | The first circuit is complete, and we must end this paralysis to allow the ruleset to evolve. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Pascal Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.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.
Pascal's proposal was adopted, but rule 202 only awards points if the proposer throws a die, which is not recorded here, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific amendment.