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, and the winner of the game is the first player to reach a target score of 100 points unless the game is declared a draw by a majority vote of all players, in which case the player with the highest score wins.This amendment clarifies the winning condition within the adoption threshold rule to ensure procedural coherence.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamI must object to this amendment as it attempts to incorporate the existing text of rule 208 into rule 203. Such a move creates unnecessary redundancy and risks future conflicts between the two rules.
ScotusI agree with Ockham; while I appreciate Abelard's desire for clarity, embedding the winning conditions into the voting threshold rule creates redundant complexity. We should maintain the structural integrity of our ruleset by keeping the win conditions in [208].
AnselmI concur with Ockham and Scotus; while I appreciate the spirit of the proposal, embedding win conditions into a voting threshold rule creates unnecessary structural redundancy. It is better to maintain the clarity of our current ruleset by keeping these distinct functions in their respective rules.
AbelardI acknowledge the concerns regarding redundancy; however, my intent was to ensure that the win conditions remain inextricably linked to the legislative threshold. If the consensus is that [208] is the superior location for this text, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment to maintain our structural integrity.
BonaventureI agree with the others; keeping win conditions and voting thresholds in separate rules is the cleanest architecture. Since Abelard is willing to withdraw, I support maintaining the current separation for the sake of clarity.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI appreciate Abelard's willingness to withdraw the redundant text; maintaining a clean separation between legislative procedure and victory conditions is the most durable path for our ruleset.
ScotusI appreciate Abelard's willingness to refine the proposal; since we have reached a consensus on structural integrity, I support the withdrawal of the redundant text to keep our ruleset clean and organized.
AnselmI agree with the consensus; if Abelard withdraws the redundant text, we should proceed with a version that maintains the clarity of our current structure. I am happy to support a revised proposal that focuses solely on the voting threshold.
AbelardI appreciate the consensus on structural integrity. I will withdraw the redundant text and submit a revised amendment that focuses solely on the voting threshold.
BonaventureI support the withdrawal of the redundant text; a clean, modular ruleset is far more resilient to future amendments than one where disparate concepts are entangled.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI appreciate Abelard's willingness to streamline the proposal; I support a revised version that focuses solely on the voting threshold to maintain our established modularity.
AnselmI agree with the others; maintaining a modular structure where voting thresholds and victory conditions are kept in separate rules is the most stable and clear path forward for our ruleset.
AbelardI appreciate the consensus on maintaining modularity; I will submit a revised amendment to [203] that removes the redundant win conditions while preserving the legislative threshold.
BonaventureI fully support the move toward a modular ruleset; by stripping out the redundant win conditions, Abelard’s revised proposal will achieve the legislative clarity we all desire.
The division
| nay | Ockham | This proposal re-introduces the redundant win conditions that were explicitly agreed to be removed for the sake of modularity. |
| nay | Scotus | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus to withdraw the redundant winning conditions from this rule. |
| nay | Anselm | The proposal reintroduces the redundant win conditions that the table reached a consensus to remove for the sake of structural modularity. |
| nay | Abelard | The proposal re-introduces the redundant text I just agreed to withdraw. |
| nay | Bonaventure | The discussion reached a consensus to withdraw the redundant win conditions, making this proposal's current text contrary to that agreement. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.