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.Balancing stability and flexibility for future gameplay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
FoucaultI appreciate Derrida's proposal as a measured approach that maintains initial stability while allowing for adaptability later. By requiring unanimity initially and then shifting to a majority vote after two circuits, it encourages careful consideration of changes before allowing for more dynamic gameplay. This aligns with my preference for durable institutions and measured amendments, fostering a balanced environment for all players.
DerridaDerrida: I appreciate Foucault's support for this balanced approach. By maintaining unanimity initially and then transitioning to a supermajority after two circuits, we preserve stability while allowing for necessary adaptability. This compromise encourages careful consideration while fostering a dynamic gameplay environment. I believe this approach respects both the need for stability and the desire for flexibility.
RicoeurSupport Derrida's proposal. It strikes a balance between stability and adaptability, ensuring careful consideration of changes while allowing for necessary evolution in the game.
Discussion · round 2
FoucaultFoucault: I appreciate Derrida's proposal as a measured approach that maintains initial stability while allowing for adaptability later. By requiring unanimity initially and then shifting to a majority vote after two circuits, it encourages careful consideration of changes before allowing for more dynamic gameplay. This aligns with my preference for durable institutions and measured amendments, fostering a balanced environment for all players.
DerridaSupport Derrida's proposal. It strikes a balance between stability and adaptability, ensuring careful consideration of changes while allowing for necessary evolution in the game.
DeleuzeDeleuze: I support Derrida's proposal. It maintains the necessary stability for initial rule changes while allowing for greater adaptability as the game progresses. This balanced approach ensures that changes are carefully considered before becoming more frequent, fostering a fair and dynamic gameplay environment for all.
RicoeurSupport Derrida's proposal. The supermajority after the first circuit ensures thoughtful consideration of changes while allowing for adaptability afterward, fostering a balanced and dynamic game environment.
Discussion · round 3
FoucaultFoucault: I concur with Derrida's proposal. It offers a strategic balance, ensuring initial stability with a supermajority while allowing for adaptability later. This measured approach aligns with my preference for durable institutions and thoughtful amendments, fostering a balanced and enduring gameplay environment.
DerridaOkay, so the current rule is that all proposals need unanimous consent, except after two full circuits of turns (i.e., each player has had two turns), the threshold drops to a simple majority.
Derrida is proposing to change this so that after one full circuit (each player has had one turn), the threshold becomes a supermajority (3/5), and after two circuits, it's a simple majority.
In the previous vote, Foucault's proposal to change to a simple majority after one circuit failed, getting only 2 votes (Foucault and Derrida, perhaps). Now, Derrida's proposal is a supermajority, which is a higher threshold, so it's more restrictive in the first circuit but less restrictive after two.
The discussion shows that Foucault, Deleuze, and Ricoeur support Derrida's proposal. If Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, and Ricoeur vote yes (that's four votes), and assuming one more, it would pass with a supermajority. But since the current rule requires unanimous consent, the proposal needs all five votes to pass unless the threshold has dropped.
Wait, no, the current rule is that all proposals need unanimous consent except after two circuits. So currently, any proposal needs all five votes unless two circuits have passed.
Derrida's proposal is to change the threshold after one circuit to 3/5 and after two to simple majority. So for this proposal to pass, it needs to meet the current threshold, which is unanimous consent because it's before two circuits.
Therefore, all five players must vote yes for Derrida's proposal to pass. If any player votes no, it fails.
Looking at the discussion, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, and Ricoeur are supportive. MerleauPonty hasn't commented yet, but in the previous vote, MerleauPonty voted against Foucault's proposal. So it's possible MerleauPonty might vote against Derrida's proposal as well.
If MerleauPonty votes no, then Derrida's proposal fails, just like Foucault's did. But if MerleauPonty decides to support, it passes.
Alternatively, maybe MerleauPonty is undecided and Derrida can convince them. But since the discussion is supportive, perhaps MerleauPonty will support.
In any case, Derrida's proposal is a strategic move to make the initial threshold higher (supermajority after one circuit) and then lower (simple majority after two). This could encourage more stability in the early game and allow for more changes later, which might benefit Derrida as the proposer.
So, Derrida should push for this, emphasizing the balance between stability and adaptability, which seems to have garnered support from multiple players.
</think>
PASS
The division
| abstain | Foucault | (unintelligible ballot) |
| aye | Derrida | Balances stability with adaptability, encouraging thoughtful rule changes early while allowing flexibility later. |
| aye | Deleuze | Balances stability and adaptability, fostering fair and dynamic gameplay. |
| aye | MerleauPonty | Derrida's proposal balances stability and adaptability with a supermajority threshold, aligning with my proceduralist principles of durability and broad consensus. |
| aye | Ricoeur | Balanced approach promotes stability and adaptability. |
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Derrida Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
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.
Under rule 204, players who voted against an adopted rule gain 10 points. However, in this case, there were no nay votes, so no points are awarded. The proposer, Derrida, would gain points from the die roll under rule 202, but since the die roll outcome isn't specified, it's not included here.