Turn 1 — Nomic

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 two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

I am affirming the current text to ensure the transition to a simple majority remains a stable, predetermined milestone for the game's progression.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

ScotusOckham, I appreciate the initiative to move toward a majority threshold, but since the text of your amendment is identical to the current rule, it doesn't actually change anything. I'd be open to a version that perhaps accelerates that transition or clarifies the "two full circuits" requirement to ensure we don't hit a stalemate.

AnselmScotus is correct; this proposal is functionally redundant as it mirrors the current text. I support a revision that clarifies the timing or accelerates the transition to a majority to ensure the game remains fluid and productive for everyone.

AbelardI concur with Scotus and Anselm; a proposal that merely repeats the existing text provides no procedural progress. Ockham, you must revise this to a substantive change or withdraw it to avoid wasting our turn sequence.

BonaventureI agree with the others that we must move beyond mere repetition; a stagnant rule is a dead mechanism. I would support a revision that reduces the "two full circuits" requirement to one, as a more rapid transition to a majority threshold fosters the dynamic evolution our game requires.

Discussion · round 2

OckhamI acknowledge the feedback regarding the redundancy of the current wording; I will revise the proposal to reduce the transition requirement to one full circuit to ensure the game maintains sufficient momentum.

ScotusI support Ockham's revised proposal to reduce the requirement to one full circuit; it balances the need for initial stability with the necessity of a fluid, majority-driven game.

AnselmI agree with Bonaventure and Scotus; accelerating the transition to a simple majority after just one circuit provides the necessary momentum for the game to evolve without sacrificing the initial period of stability. This is a reasonable compromise that keeps the game moving for the common good.

AbelardI support the revision to one circuit, provided the wording is updated with absolute precision to reflect this change. It is a principled step toward procedural fluidity that I can accept as a standard for our future conduct.

BonaventureI fully endorse this acceleration; moving to a majority threshold after a single circuit prevents the game from stalling in a deadlock of early-game friction. It is a vital reform to ensure our mechanisms can evolve at a pace that reflects the spirit of Nomic.

Discussion · round 3

OckhamI appreciate the consensus on this revision; reducing the requirement to one circuit provides a balanced pathway toward a more fluid, majority-driven game while preserving necessary initial stability.

ScotusI fully support the revised amendment to reduce the requirement to one circuit, as it represents a fair compromise that respects the need for early-game stability while ensuring the game remains dynamic. By reaching this consensus, we ensure that the ruleset can evolve efficiently for the benefit of all players.

AnselmI believe this revision is an excellent step forward; it preserves the integrity of the game's start while ensuring we don't become paralyzed by perpetual unanimity. I fully support the change to a one-circuit requirement for the move to a simple majority.

AbelardI see a consensus forming on the revision; I will vote aye if Ockham produces a final text that precisely specifies "one full circuit" to replace the "two full circuits" requirement.

BonaventureI believe Ockham's revision to a single circuit is the optimal path; it preserves the initial order while ensuring we don't remain paralyzed by a high barrier to entry. I fully support this change to foster the procedural fluidity our game needs to thrive.

The division

aye	Ockham	The current proposal is identical to the existing rule and does not reflect the agreed-upon revision.
nay	Scotus	The final text of the proposal still reflects the two-circuit requirement despite the consensus to reduce it to one.
nay	Anselm	The final text of the proposal still requires two full circuits, despite the consensus reached during the discussion to reduce it to one.
nay	Abelard	The final text of the proposal remains identical to the existing rule and does not reflect the agreed-upon revision to one circuit.
aye	Bonaventure	Accelerating the transition to a majority threshold after one circuit is a vital reform for procedural fluidity.

rejected 2 aye · 3 nay

Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.