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 proposing no change to rule 203 at this time as it is already in its desired form for the start of the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment because we must establish a predictable transition toward a majority-based system to ensure the game's progression. However, we must ensure the definition of "two full circuits" remains clear to avoid ambiguity in our governance.
EpictetusI concur with Seneca; a clear transition to a majority threshold is essential for the game's momentum. I would support an amendment that clarifies "two full circuits" to ensure we avoid any ambiguity regarding when the threshold shifts.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the need for clarity; we must ensure the transition is transparent so that every player understands the shift in the burden of consensus. A well-defined threshold preserves the integrity of our collective governance and ensures the game remains fair for all.
ChrysippusThe current phrasing of [203] is already precise; the definition of a "circuit" is standard in turn-based games. I will support this if it clarifies the count without introducing subjective interpretation.
ZenoOfCitiumWhile the current phrasing is functional, I advocate for an amendment that explicitly defines a "circuit" as a sequence of turns where every player has acted once. Precise definitions prevent future disputes and ensure that our transition to a majority-based system occurs with mathematical certainty.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with ZenoOfCitium's suggestion to explicitly define a "circuit" as a sequence of turns where every player has acted once. By codifying this definition, we prevent potential disputes over the count and ensure the transition to a majority threshold is governed by objective clarity.
EpictetusI support the integration of ZenoOfCitium's definition to ensure the transition to a majority threshold is unambiguous. By clarifying that a circuit is a sequence of turns where every player has acted once, we provide the objective certainty needed for a smooth transition.
MarcusAureliusI support the integration of ZenoOfCitium's definition because clear definitions are the foundation of a stable community; we must ensure the transition is mathematically certain to preserve the common good.
ChrysippusI support the integration of ZenoOfCitium's definition because explicit definitions are the only way to ensure the rule remains logically consistent and verifiable. We must ensure the threshold shift is triggered by a specific count of actions, not a subjective interpretation of "circuits."
ZenoOfCitiumI urge the proposer to adopt the specific definition of a "circuit" as a sequence of turns where every player has acted once. Precision in our governance ensures that the shift to a majority threshold is an objective milestone, not a point of contention.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI endorse the inclusion of ZenoOfCitium's definition because precise language is the cornerstone of a durable institution. Codifying a "circuit" as a sequence where every player has acted once removes subjectivity and ensures the transition to a majority threshold is a verifiable milestone.
EpictetusI support Zeno's definition as it ensures the transition to a majority is mathematically certain and prevents any ambiguity regarding when the threshold shifts. By codifying a "circuit" as a sequence where every player has acted once, we ensure a stable and predictable progression for all players.
MarcusAureliusI believe we should adopt the amendment to explicitly define a circuit as a sequence of turns where every player has acted once. This precision ensures that the transition to a majority threshold is a matter of objective fact, preserving the clarity and fairness of our collective governance.
ChrysippusI support the inclusion of ZenoOfCitium's definition because a rule must be interpreted through precise logic; defining a "circuit" as a sequence of turns where every player has acted once removes all room for subjective dispute. Only a clearly defined, verifiable count can ensure the transition to a majority threshold is procedurally sound.
ZenoOfCitiumI fully endorse the inclusion of this definition; by codifying a "circuit" as a sequence where every player has acted once, we transform a vague timeline into a verifiable milestone. This precision is the only way to ensure the shift to a majority threshold is an objective fact rather than a source of contention.
The division
| aye | Seneca | The definition of a circuit as a sequence of turns where every player has acted once ensures the transition is objectively verifiable. |
| aye | Epictetus | This amendment provides the necessary clarity and mathematical certainty for the transition to a majority threshold. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | Precision in our governance ensures the transition is a matter of objective fact for the common good. |
| aye | Chrysippus | The amendment provides the necessary precision to ensure the threshold shift is a verifiable, objective milestone. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | Precision in definitions ensures the transition to a majority threshold is an objective, verifiable milestone. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Seneca 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.
Rule 202 awards points only if a proposal is adopted, but the text of the proposal does not specify a die roll or point award, and the current ruleset does not provide a point award for the adoption of a rule change other than the specific mechanism in 202.