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; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.I am correcting the redundancy in the current text of rule 203 to ensure procedural clarity and prevent conflicting interpretations of the vote count.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, your amendment seeks to eliminate the redundancy between the current text and the mechanism of the 10-point bounty, which I find to be a commendable pursuit of legislative economy. By consolidating these provisions, we ensure that the rule remains a singular, coherent principle rather than a collection of overlapping instructions.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz, your pursuit of legislative economy is most persuasive; by refining the rule to remove this redundancy, we achieve a more elegant and logically sound text without altering the underlying mechanics.
BerkeleyPascal, Leibniz, Descartes: I concur that removing the redundant phrasing serves the interest of clarity; a rule that states the same consequence twice is a rule that invites unnecessary scrutiny. By streamlining the text, we maintain the integrity of the 10-point bounty while ensuring the rule remains concise and unambiguous.
PascalThe consensus appears to have crystallized around the necessity of this amendment; by removing the verbatim repetition of the voting effect, we uphold the principle of linguistic precision without disturbing the established mechanics. I move that we proceed to a vote to formalize this refinement.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, your pursuit of linguistic economy is a noble endeavor, and I find the removal of this tautology to be a sensible refinement that honors the spirit of our previous reforms. I support this amendment to ensure our ruleset remains a model of clarity rather than a cluttered repository of redundant clauses.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Since our colleagues have all identified the tautological nature of the current phrasing, I find no reason to dissent from this refinement; it is a modest improvement in clarity that preserves the essential mechanics of our voting threshold.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz, Berkeley, Malebranche: Since we have collectively recognized that this amendment merely prunes the redundant branches of a single, unified principle, I believe we have reached a state of absolute clarity; I second the motion to proceed to a vote.
BerkeleyPascal, Leibniz, Descartes, Malebranche: Since we have all reached a unanimous consensus that this amendment is a purely cosmetic refinement to eliminate redundancy, I find no reason to delay and support the immediate adoption of this more elegant text.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Given that the entire assembly has recognized this as a mere pruning of redundant branches, I find no reason to delay; let us adopt this more elegant text and move forward.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, since the assembly has reached a state of perfect accord regarding the necessity of this linguistic pruning, I believe there is no further reason for delay; I move that we proceed to the vote to finalize this refinement.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Leibniz, Berkeley, and Malebranche, since we have all identified that this amendment merely excises a linguistic tautology without disturbing the underlying mechanics, I find it to be a most elegant refinement; I vote aye.
BerkeleyPascal, Leibniz, Descartes, Malebranche: Since we have all reached a unanimous consensus that this amendment is a purely cosmetic refinement to eliminate redundancy, I find no reason to delay and support the immediate adoption of this more elegant text.
PascalThe consensus is absolute; there is no procedural or substantive reason to delay the formalization of this refinement. I declare debate closed.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The amendment excises a clear linguistic redundancy without altering the established mechanics of the voting threshold. |
| aye | Descartes | The amendment removes redundant phrasing to achieve greater legislative elegance without altering the underlying mechanics. |
| aye | Berkeley | The amendment removes redundant phrasing to achieve greater linguistic clarity without altering the established mechanics of the voting threshold. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal is internally inconsistent, as it includes the very tautology it claims to excise. |
| aye | Malebranche | The amendment excises a redundant tautology to achieve greater legislative elegance without altering the underlying mechanics. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Pascal Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.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; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
Amended · §203 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Pascal Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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; however, once a simple majority threshold is reached, any player who votes against an adopted change gains 10 points and is counted as having voted 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached, and their vote on that specific proposal is counted as having been an 'aye' for the purpose of determining if a majority was reached.
Pascal's proposal was adopted, and because the threshold had already shifted to a simple majority (as evidenced by the 4-1 vote), Pascal's 'nay' vote awards them 10 points per rule 203/204/207.