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.I propose we shorten the waiting period for majority voting to one circuit to facilitate more dynamic rule evolution while still respecting the need for initial stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes' proposal is a prudent middle path, offering a more reasonable duration for the establishment of our fundamental order before transitioning to the more volatile regime of majority rule. I support this amendment, as it balances the need for initial stability with the necessity of eventual progress.
DescartesI agree with Leibniz that this compromise offers a more sensible rhythm for our governance. By shortening the period of unanimity to one circuit, we ensure the ruleset remains dynamic without sacrificing the initial stability we all seek.
BerkeleyWhile a one-circuit transition is certainly more agile than two, we must ensure that the shift to majority rule does not allow a coalition to strip the minority of their voice before the game's fundamental character is established. I am inclined to support this compromise, as it provides a predictable window for stability while preventing the stagnation that Leibniz's failed proposal risked.
PascalI cannot support this amendment. Reducing the period of unanimity to a single circuit risks a premature shift to majority rule before the players have sufficiently established a stable and predictable procedural baseline.
MalebranchePascal, stability is not found in stagnation, but in the ability to correct course before a single player's error becomes an immutable law. I support Descartes' amendment because a single circuit provides ample time to observe the players' intentions while preventing the paralysis that currently punishes Leibniz for even attempting progress.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizPascal, your concern for stability is noted, but a single circuit is sufficient to establish a common understanding of the game's mechanics. A rule that requires such prolonged unanimity risks becoming a barrier to the very order you wish to protect.
DescartesPascal, I hear your concern regarding a "premature shift," but consider that under the current two-circuit rule, the cost of failed proposals—which currently penalizes Leibniz—may create a stagnation that is more dangerous to stability than a single circuit of unanimity. If we adopt this amendment, we provide a clear, predictable horizon for when the ruleset will become more fluid, allowing us to build that baseline you desire without the risk of paralysis.
BerkeleyPascal, if we maintain the two-circuit requirement, we risk a permanent deadlock where the penalty for failure discourages all meaningful evolution. I propose we adopt Descartes' amendment to ensure the game remains playable, while perhaps considering a future amendment to mitigate the point penalties for failed proposals.
PascalIf we shorten the period of unanimity, we accelerate the arrival of a regime where a simple majority can impose its will upon the dissenters; I maintain that two circuits are necessary to ensure that the players have truly internalized the consequences of their initial, unanimous decisions. To move the threshold earlier is to prioritize speed over the deliberate consensus required to build a stable foundation.
MalebranchePascal, you speak of internalizing consequences, yet the current ruleset punishes the very act of proposing progress with a ten-point penalty, creating a system that incentivizes silence over stability. A single circuit allows us to establish our identities through action, ensuring that when the threshold shifts, it does so based on a lived experience of the rules rather than a theoretical fear of them.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizPascal, stability is not a static state achieved through prolonged silence, but a dynamic equilibrium maintained through active participation; a single circuit provides the necessary period for this equilibrium to be tested without inviting the paralysis that currently discourages all movement. I urge you to consider that a ruleset which punishes the very attempt to refine it is a ruleset that invites its own decay.
DescartesPascal, if we remain at two circuits, the current penalty for failure may discourage the very "deliberate consensus" you seek by making the cost of error too high to bear. I propose we adopt this one-circuit amendment now to ensure the game breathes, and if you find the transition too rapid, we can later amend the rules to mitigate the point penalties for failed proposals.
BerkeleyPascal, your desire for a stable foundation is valid, but stability built upon the fear of a ten-point penalty is merely a state of paralysis. If we adopt Descartes' amendment, we secure a predictable transition that allows us to test the ruleset's integrity without the risk of the stagnation currently threatening our progress.
PascalThe argument that a single circuit provides "lived experience" is a fallacy; a single circuit is insufficient to distinguish between a temporary consensus and a fundamental agreement on the game's structural integrity. I will not trade my vote for the promise of future amendments to the penalty system, as a rule change is not a guarantee of future behavior.
MalebranchePascal, your insistence on two circuits is a demand for a graveyard, not a foundation; if we cannot trust our consensus to hold for a single revolution, we have already lost the game to inertia. I move that we adopt Descartes' amendment to transform this paralysis into a living, breathing system.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | A single circuit provides a necessary balance between initial consensus and the prevention of procedural paralysis. |
| aye | Descartes | A single circuit provides a necessary balance between initial stability and the prevention of procedural paralysis. |
| aye | Berkeley | A single circuit provides a necessary balance between initial stability and the prevention of systemic stagnation. |
| nay | Pascal | Reducing the unanimity period to one circuit risks a premature shift to majority rule before a stable procedural baseline is established. |
| aye | Malebranche | A single circuit provides the necessary breathing room for stability without condemning the game to terminal paralysis. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Descartes' proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the ruleset remains unchanged.