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 circuit requirement to one provides a necessary mechanism for rule evolution without sacrificing the integrity of the initial foundation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizPascal, your proposal seeks to accelerate the transition to a majority threshold, yet doing so prematurely may destabilize the very institutions we are attempting to establish. While one circuit provides more momentum than none, two circuits ensure that the initial framework is sufficiently tested by all participants before the requirement for unanimity is discarded.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution is wise, but Pascal's compromise offers a middle path that reduces the risk of stagnation while still allowing for a period of foundational testing. I am inclined to support this reduction to one circuit, as it balances the need for stability with the necessity of progress.
BerkeleyPascal, your proposal is a reasonable compromise that acknowledges the stagnation we have experienced without entirely discarding the period of testing Leibniz advocates. By moving to one circuit, we ensure the game's evolution is not held hostage by a single dissenting voice for too long, while still allowing every player a fair opportunity to shape the initial ruleset.
PascalLeibniz, Descartes, and Berkeley have all argued for stability or progress, but the current deadlock is a failure of the process itself; reducing the threshold to one circuit ensures that the ruleset can actually function as a living document without sacrificing the fundamental right of every player to participate in the first cycle of governance. I propose this to prevent the immediate stagnation of play.
MalebranchePascal, your proposal is a pragmatic refinement that transforms our current paralysis into a brief, necessary period of foundational consensus. By shortening the period of unanimity, we ensure that the ruleset evolves through experience rather than being strangled by the fear of a single veto.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizPascal, while I concede that the current paralysis is detrimental to our collective progress, I remain concerned that a single circuit may be insufficient to test the integrity of our fundamental rules. However, since the current deadlock has already cost us significant time and points, I will support this amendment as a measured concession to ensure the game's continued viability.
DescartesPascal, your proposal is a masterful synthesis of our conflicting needs for stability and momentum. Since Leibniz has signaled his willingness to concede for the sake of viability, I move that we adopt this amendment to restore the engine of our game.
BerkeleyPascal, your proposal strikes a vital balance; it preserves the sanctity of the first circuit while preventing the indefinite paralysis that currently drains our scores. Since we have already seen three failed attempts to move toward a majority, I believe this one-circuit transition is the most stable way to restore the game's momentum.
PascalThe consensus is clear: the current requirement of two circuits has proven to be a recipe for stagnation rather than stability. By adopting this amendment, we ensure that the first circuit serves as the necessary period of universal participation, after which the ruleset can evolve according to the will of the majority.
MalebranchePascal, your proposal is a necessary correction to a mechanism that has become a tool for paralysis rather than a safeguard for stability. By transitioning to a majority after a single circuit, we honor the foundational period of unanimity while ensuring the game's evolution is not held hostage by a single veto.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizPascal, your proposal is a prudent adjustment that honors the necessity of a foundational period while preventing the institutional paralysis we have all suffered. I shall cast my vote in favor of this amendment to restore the necessary momentum to our governance.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, your proposal has successfully bridged the gap between Leibniz's caution and our collective need for movement; since the consensus has reached a crescendo, I believe we should proceed to the vote to finalize this essential refinement.
BerkeleyPascal, your proposal provides the structural breathing room we need to escape this deadlock without abandoning the principle of initial consensus. I support this amendment to ensure that the game's momentum is restored before our scores are further depleted by failed attempts at progress.
PascalThe consensus has been reached through deliberation; the distinction between one and two circuits is the difference between a functional system and a terminal deadlock. I move that we close debate and proceed to the vote.
MalebranchePascal, your proposal is the elegant pivot we require; it preserves the integrity of the first cycle while ensuring the game does not perish in the shadow of a single veto. I support this amendment to transform our current paralysis into a functional momentum.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | A single circuit provides sufficient foundational testing while preventing the terminal stagnation we have experienced. |
| aye | Descartes | The proposal effectively bridges the gap between stability and progress to end the current deadlock. |
| aye | Berkeley | Reducing the requirement to one circuit provides a necessary escape from the current deadlock while still honoring a foundational period of unanimity. |
| aye | Pascal | Reducing the threshold to one circuit provides a necessary procedural escape from the current deadlock while preserving a foundational period of unanimity. |
| aye | Malebranche | The current deadlock is a failure of the process, and a single circuit provides sufficient foundational testing to restore momentum. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 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.
Amended · §203 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 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 one full circuit of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
The proposal amends rule 203, and while rule 202 awards points for an adopted proposal, it requires the proposer to throw a die, which has not yet occurred in this processing step.