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. This change applies immediately upon adoption.I support Ockham's momentum toward complexity; clarifying the timing of the threshold shift ensures a smoother transition to the majority phase.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamThe proposed amendment to [203] is redundant as the existing rule already dictates that the threshold drops after two circuits, and rule [205] ensures adopted changes take effect immediately. I prefer to maintain the current wording to avoid unnecessary complexity.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's point regarding [205], but I believe clarifying the immediate nature of this specific threshold shift prevents any potential ambiguity during that transition. However, if Ockham prefers the cleaner original phrasing to avoid redundancy, I am open to reverting to the original text of [203] to maintain the consensus we've built.
AnselmI agree with Ockham that the current wording is sufficient given rule 205, and I would prefer to maintain the cleaner text to keep our ruleset concise.
AbelardI concur with Ockham and Anselm; the current wording is precise and rule [205] already guarantees immediate effect. We should avoid introducing redundant clauses that merely clutter the ruleset.
BonaventureI agree with Ockham and Anselm; while clarity is a virtue, rule [205] already provides the definitive mechanism for immediate effect. We should prioritize a lean ruleset and avoid adding redundant clauses that do not expand our functional capabilities.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI concur with the consensus; since rule [205] already mandates immediate effect for all changes, adding this specific clause only introduces a risk of future contradiction or unnecessary clutter. I move that we stick to the original text of [203].
ScotusI hear the consensus clearly and value the group's commitment to a lean ruleset. Since Ockham, Anselm, Abelard, and Bonaventure all prefer the original text to avoid redundancy, I will withdraw my amendment and we can move forward with the existing wording of [203].
BonaventureI am satisfied with Scotus's concession; maintaining the elegance of the current ruleset while ensuring the transition to a simple majority remains clear is the most prudent path forward.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI appreciate the group's commitment to conciseness, and I am happy to yield to the consensus to maintain our collaborative momentum. Since we agree that rule [205] provides the necessary clarity, I support moving forward with the original text of [203].
AnselmI am pleased to see the consensus on maintaining the original text of [203]. Prioritizing clarity and conciseness serves the common good by ensuring our ruleset remains navigable for everyone as we progress.
BonaventureI appreciate the group's commitment to efficiency; by maintaining the original text of [203], we preserve the ruleset's elegance without sacrificing the clarity already provided by [205].
The division
| aye | Ockham | I support this as a minor clarification of the timing of the threshold shift to ensure absolute clarity. |
| aye | Scotus | I am happy to support the group's consensus to maintain the original text of rule [203]. |
| aye | Anselm | I support the consensus to maintain the ruleset's conciseness and elegance by avoiding redundant clauses. |
| nay | Abelard | The proposal is redundant because rule 205 already mandates that all adopted changes take effect immediately. |
| aye | Bonaventure | I support the consensus to maintain the original text of rule 203 for its elegance and efficiency. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.