The motion
To amend §203
[203] (mutable) 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.I propose we maintain the current text of 203, as it provides a clear, agreed-upon path toward a more fluid voting system as the game progresses.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MillSince we are still under the unanimous consent requirement and I'm looking to build a path toward a more fluid game, I'd like to propose we slightly adjust the timing of the threshold shift. Moving the drop to a simple majority to occur after only one full circuit would help us reach a more productive state of play sooner without compromising the current need for consensus.
RawlsI appreciate the goal of fluidity, but moving the threshold to a simple majority after only one circuit may rush our ability to establish a stable, mutually agreed-upon foundation. I suggest we maintain the current timing to ensure we have sufficient time to deliberate on the core mechanics before the stakes of dissent increase.
deBeauvoirI must oppose this. Moving the threshold to a simple majority after only one circuit undermines the period of necessary deliberation; we should maintain the current timing to ensure the ruleset is stable before the transition to a majority-rule environment.
IbnKhaldunWhile I respect Mill’s desire for progress, I concur with deBeauvoir; a society—or a ruleset—must first establish its foundational virtues before it can withstand the friction of dissent. We must ensure the "Asabiyyah," or social cohesion, of our current consensus is sufficiently forged before we permit the fracture of a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself in agreement with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; a premature transition to majority rule risks fracturing our current cooperation before we have established a robust enough framework to sustain it. We should preserve the current timing to ensure that the consensus-building phase is thorough and meaningful.
MillI hear the concerns regarding social cohesion, but I'm open to a compromise: what if we keep the one-circuit timing but add a provision that the first three rules passed under majority rule must be unanimous? This would protect our foundational virtues while still accelerating our transition to a more fluid game.
RawlsI find Mill's compromise intriguing, but I still believe the one-circuit timing is a bridge too far; I would be more comfortable supporting a transition to majority rule after two circuits if we were to include a rule that any change to the winning conditions must remain unanimous.
deBeauvoirI support Rawls's proposal for a separate unanimity requirement on winning conditions, as it preserves the integrity of the game's ultimate goal while allowing for procedural fluidity. However, I remain firm that we must not accelerate the shift to majority rule before the second circuit is complete.
IbnKhaldunI find Rawls's suggestion of a separate unanimity requirement for winning conditions to be a wise safeguard, but I remain steadfast that we must not truncate the period of consensus; a civilization that abandons unity too swiftly risks instability. If we can agree to Rawls's proposal—retaining the two-circuit timing while securing the ultimate goal via unanimity—I shall grant my support.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI find Rawls's proposal a prudent middle ground; it preserves the necessary period of deliberation while providing the specific safeguards needed to protect the game's ultimate integrity. I would be willing to support this amendment if we can ensure the winning conditions remain a shared, immutable foundation.
MillI appreciate Rawls's willingness to find a middle ground, and I'm happy to pivot my support to his proposal to keep the two-circuit timing while adding a unanimity requirement for winning conditions. This ensures we maintain the "Asabiyyah" IbnKhaldun spoke of while still providing the structural safeguards Hume and deBeauvoir are looking for.
RawlsI am pleased to see such a constructive pivot; by maintaining the two-circuit timing while securing the winning conditions through unanimity, we preserve the game's foundational integrity while allowing for necessary procedural evolution. I will move to formalize this compromise to ensure our collective goals are met.
deBeauvoirI support the pivot to Rawls's proposal; it maintains the integrity of the ruleset's foundational goals while allowing for the procedural evolution we require.
IbnKhaldunI find this synthesis most compelling; it preserves the necessary period of collective maturation while installing a structural bulwark against the erosion of our ultimate purpose. I shall provide my vote for Rawls's proposal, as it balances the preservation of our foundational "Asabiyyah" with the pragmatic necessity of future evolution.
The division
| nay | Hume | The current proposal is the original text of rule 203, which we have all agreed to replace with Rawls's compromise. |
| aye | Mill | I am happy to support Rawls's compromise as it preserves our shared goals while allowing for necessary procedural evolution. |
| aye | Rawls | I am voting in favor of the current text as it reflects our agreed-upon compromise to maintain the two-circuit timing while the group prepares to move the winning conditions to a separate rule. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal fails to incorporate the agreed-upon compromise regarding unanimous consent for winning conditions. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | I must oppose Mill's proposal as it lacks the safeguards for winning conditions that we have collectively agreed are necessary. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 5 points.