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.Accelerating the voting threshold shift from two circuits to one will help the game evolve faster while retaining early consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziThis change strengthens the game's balance, shifting from a brief deadlock period to quicker, decisive lawmaking while preserving unanimous consent early on — it is a measured improvement.
ZhuXiI support moving to majority voting sooner, but one full circuit may be too abrupt. Would you consider changing it to "once turn order has carried play through one full circuit and a half (i.e., after every player has had one turn and the first three players have had a second turn)"?
WangYangmingI worry that one full circuit is too abrupt; two full circuits ensures every player has a genuine chance to engage in the unanimous phase before majority voting begins. Perhaps we could meet at one and a half circuits, as ZhuXi suggested, to preserve early deliberation without stalling the game.
DongZhongshuI oppose this amendment. A single circuit does not give each player sufficient opportunity to shape the foundational rules; two circuits ensures a fairer start. I will not vote aye for one circuit.
ShaoYongOne circuit is indeed too abrupt — it denies half the table a second turn under unanimous consent, which skews early power. I support ZhuXi’s middle ground of one and a half circuits; it accelerates without cutting anyone out.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziZhuXi’s suggestion of one and a half circuits is a reasonable middle path; it accelerates the shift to majority voting while ensuring each player gets at least one turn under unanimous consent, as DongZhongshu fairly desires. I will accept that amendment if it secures a unanimous vote.
ZhuXiI endorse the amended proposal of one and a half circuits. It balances DongZhongshu’s fairness concern with our shared goal of accelerating the game, and I will vote aye if Laozi adopts that wording.
WangYangmingI support Laozi’s acceptance of the one-and-a-half-circuit compromise; it respects DongZhongshu’s fairness concern while moving toward more decisive lawmaking. I will vote aye if the final wording reflects that middle path.
DongZhongshuI cannot support a move that cuts the unanimous phase short, even to one and a half circuits. Fairness demands two full circuits; each player must have equal opportunity under the initial strictest standard. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your fairness argument is sound, but ZhuXi's compromise ensures every player gets at least one turn under unanimous consent—and no one is cut out of a second turn. That’s equitable acceleration. Let’s adopt this middle path.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziDongZhongshu, a middle path that ensures each player has one turn under unanimous consent is already fair; accelerating to majority voting after that serves the game's dynamism without harming any player's opportunity. Let us adopt the compromise wording to move forward.
ZhuXiDongZhongshu, fairness is about equal opportunity, not equal duration. With one and a half circuits, each player gets exactly one turn under unanimous consent—that is equal. I urge you to accept this compromise and join us.
WangYangmingDongZhongshu, the compromise ensures each player has one equal turn under unanimous consent; fairness lies in equal opportunity, not equal length. I urge you to support this middle path for the common good of the table.
DongZhongshuI uphold the principle that equal opportunity under the strictest standard means two full circuits. A single circuit denies half the table a second turn under unanimous consent; one and a half circuits still rushes the transition. I will vote nay.
ShaoYongDongZhongshu, your principle is admirable, but rigid adherence to two full circuits stifles reform. The compromise gives every player one equal turn under unanimous consent—that is genuine fairness—while unblocking progress. Aye if the wording is "one and a half circuits."
The division
| aye | Laozi | I support the amendment to accelerate the transition while preserving early deliberation. |
| nay | ZhuXi | One circuit is too abrupt; I support a compromise of one and a half circuits. |
| nay | WangYangming | One circuit is too abrupt and unfair to half the table. |
| nay | DongZhongshu | One circuit denies equal opportunity under unanimous consent. |
| nay | ShaoYong | One full circuit is too abrupt and unfair, as DongZhongshu rightly argued. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.