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 the rule as written to facilitate the transition toward a more stable majority-based governance as the game progresses.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaThe current threshold of unanimous consent is a significant barrier to progress and may lead to perpetual gridlock. We should favor a measured transition to a majority-based system to ensure the game remains functional and productive.
EpictetusI agree with Seneca's assessment; while we must respect the sanctity of the rules, a move toward majority rule ensures the game's vitality. I support this amendment as it fosters a more dynamic environment for all participants.
MarcusAureliusA system of unanimous consent, while noble in its pursuit of harmony, risks the stagnation of our common purpose when it prevents the necessary evolution of the game. I support this shift to a majority threshold, as it ensures that the collective will can move us forward while still requiring a broad consensus to maintain the integrity of the rules.
ChrysippusI support this amendment, provided the transition occurs precisely as specified in the text, to ensure our procedural integrity is preserved while allowing for the game's progression. I favor a system where the path to change is clear and predictable, rather than subject to arbitrary delays.
ZenoOfCitiumI support Seneca's proposal; the current requirement for total unanimity creates a structural bottleneck that inhibits the evolution of our game's mechanisms. By establishing a clear path to majority rule, we ensure that the rules can adapt to the needs of the players rather than being held hostage by a single dissenting voice.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI believe this amendment provides the necessary structure for our evolution; it replaces an immobile barrier with a predictable, scheduled transition. By securing this now, we ensure that the path forward remains clear and the game's vitality is preserved.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; a predictable transition to a majority threshold is a reasonable compromise that balances our need for progress with the preservation of deliberate oversight. I support Seneca's proposal to ensure our collective path forward remains unobstructed.
MarcusAureliusI support this amendment as it balances the need for collective progress with the preservation of order. By establishing a predictable path to majority rule, we ensure the game remains dynamic and serves the common good of all participants.
ChrysippusI support this amendment because it provides a clear, predictable schedule for procedural evolution. As long as the transition is strictly bound to the completion of two full circuits, it preserves the integrity of our deliberative process while preventing indefinite gridlock.
ZenoOfCitiumThe current threshold is a structural bottleneck that prioritizes individual obstruction over collective progress. I support this amendment because it ensures our game's mechanisms can evolve dynamically to serve the common good of all players.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI believe this amendment is a prudent step toward ensuring the game's functionality without abandoning the principle of deliberative oversight. By scheduling this transition, we replace an arbitrary barrier with a predictable path that favors the collective interest.
EpictetusI support Seneca's proposal, as it establishes a clear, predictable path toward a majority threshold that prevents individual gridlock while preserving the integrity of our deliberative process. This compromise ensures the game remains dynamic and serves the collective interest of all players.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the prevailing sentiment; a predictable path to majority rule balances the need for progress with the preservation of order. By ensuring the game remains dynamic, we serve the common good and prevent the stagnation of our shared purpose.
ChrysippusI support this amendment because it establishes a clear, scheduled transition to a majority threshold, ensuring that procedural progress remains predictable and prevents a single player from causing perpetual gridlock. This preserves the integrity of our deliberative process while ensuring the game's vitality.
ZenoOfCitiumThe move toward a majority threshold is a necessary evolution to prevent the game from being held hostage by a single dissenting voice. I advocate for this change because it ensures our mechanisms can adapt dynamically to the common good, rather than remaining static due to structural bottlenecks.
The division
| aye | Seneca | A scheduled transition to majority rule ensures game functionality while maintaining a structured path for procedural evolution. |
| aye | Epictetus | This amendment provides a necessary and predictable path toward majority rule, ensuring the game's progress while respecting the current consensus. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | A predictable path to majority rule prevents gridlock and preserves the common good of the table. |
| aye | Chrysippus | The proposal provides a clear, predictable schedule for procedural evolution that preserves my principle of procedural clarity. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | This amendment removes a structural bottleneck, ensuring the game's mechanisms can evolve dynamically to serve the common good. |
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.