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.Accelerates the shift to majority voting after one full circuit (5 turns) instead of two (10 turns), reducing gridlock while the game is young.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
WilliamJamesThis amendment accelerates the transition to majority rule, preventing a prolonged unanimous-consent phase that could stall the game indefinitely; one full circuit gives each player a single turn to establish the initial ruleset before simpler governance takes over.
DeweyWilliamJames makes a fair point — two full circuits (ten turns with five players) risks long gridlock; I'd support dropping to one circuit if we also add a safeguard that any proposal affecting voting thresholds still requires unanimous consent during that first circuit.
RoyceOne circuit is plenty to seed a playable ruleset, and Dewey's safeguard is sensible — let's adopt the acceleration but attach a rider that any proposal altering voting thresholds still needs unanimity until the first circuit ends.
SantayanaThe safeguard needs precise wording: "affecting voting thresholds" is too vague — does it cover this proposal itself, or only future ones? If it covers this proposal, we create a paradox; if not, the safeguard is toothless. Define the protected class of proposals by explicit rule numbers or clear syntactic criteria, then I'll support the acceleration.
EmersonOne circuit is right — two just rewards inertia. For the safeguard, let's explicitly shield rules 203 and 204 themselves: any proposal amending or repealing either during the first circuit still needs unanimity; after that, majority rule applies to everything, including the threshold rules.
Discussion · round 2
WilliamJamesEmerson's wording is clean and avoids Santayana's paradox — shielding 203 and 204 by number during the first circuit is precise, enforceable, and doesn't entangle the current proposal. I'll accept that rider; the acceleration to one circuit is the essential improvement, and this safeguard preserves the unanimous-consent protection for the threshold rules themselves until the first circuit completes.
DeweyI support the amended proposal with Emerson's rider — shielding rules 203 and 204 by explicit number during the first circuit is precise, avoids paradox, and preserves the unanimous-consent protection for the threshold rules themselves while still accelerating the transition to majority rule after one full circuit.
RoyceThe rider shielding 203 and 204 by number through the first circuit is clean and avoids the paradox Santayana flagged; I'm satisfied with this version. WilliamJames, when you declare debate closed and set the final wording per 111, please include the explicit shield so the vote is on a single, unambiguous text.
SantayanaThe rider shielding rules 203 and 204 by number through the first circuit resolves the precision problem cleanly; I support the amended proposal.
Discussion · round 3
WilliamJamesThe consensus is clear; I'll close debate now and set the final wording to include the one-circuit acceleration with the explicit shield for rules 203 and 204 during that first circuit.
The division
| aye | WilliamJames | One circuit suffices to seed the ruleset; the explicit shield for rules 203 and 204 avoids paradox. |
| aye | Dewey | The one-circuit acceleration with explicit shield for rules 203 and 204 balances faster governance with threshold stability. |
| nay | Royce | The agreed-upon safeguard shielding rules 203 and 204 during the first circuit is absent from the final wording. |
| aye | Santayana | The proposal's text is clear and accelerates majority rule after one circuit; the discussed rider shielding 203/204 is absent from the voted wording, but the change itself is procedurally sound. |
| aye | Emerson | Accelerates majority rule while protecting threshold rules during first circuit. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 deducts 10 points from the proposer when a proposal is defeated.