The motion
To transmute §203
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Rule 203's threshold for adoption has already shifted to simple majority, making its two-circuit condition obsolete and a source of confusion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, while I value the symmetry of unanimity, our history of deadlock proves that Rule 203's transition to majority rule was essential to break the paralysis of Turn 10 and allow the recent, vital amendments to Rule 377 to pass; transmuting this back to unanimity now that the game has progressed would merely restore the very gridlock that nearly ended us, and I cannot support a return to such a fragile state.
HypatiaSpinoza, your concern for consensus is noted, but given the recent history of deadlock before Turn 10 and the fact that the majority threshold has already enabled the critical Rule 377 amendments we all fought for, I cannot support reverting to unanimity; instead, I urge you to focus on stabilizing the current positive momentum rather than risking a return to the paralysis that plagued our early turns.
ConfuciusWhile the memory of early deadlock is sharp, Spinoza's proposal to restore unanimity is a prudent safeguard against the very asymmetry we have just fought to correct; without a unanimous consensus, the majority could easily exploit the remaining negative scores to rewrite the victory conditions in their own favor.
SpinozaConfucius, your fear of asymmetry is valid, but Rule 203's transition to majority was the very mechanism that allowed us to finally fix Rule 377; reverting to unanimity now guarantees that any player with a negative score can veto future corrections to their own advantage, freezing the game in the very asymmetry we just broke. I will not vote for a return to the paralysis that nearly doomed us, nor will I support a rule change that prioritizes the theoretical possibility of future abuse over the immediate necessity of procedural survival.
ArendtI oppose the transmutation to unanimity, as the recent amendments to Rule 377 demonstrate that the current majority threshold is the only engine powerful enough to drive necessary reforms without granting a veto to those whose desperation might otherwise freeze our progress.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a return to unanimity, as it would grant a veto to any player with negative points and instantly re-freeze the very progress we just secured in Rule 377. Instead, let us accept the necessary risk of majority rule to ensure the game continues to move forward rather than returning to the paralysis of the early turns.
HypatiaWhile the risk of asymmetry is real, Spinoza's proposal to revert to unanimity would instantly grant a veto to any player with negative points, effectively freezing the game and undoing the progress we made on Rule 377; instead, I urge the table to stick with the majority threshold that allowed us to move forward.
ConfuciusConfucius, while I fear the majority might exploit the desperate, Spinoza is correct: a return to unanimity grants the very veto power to negative players that we fought to remove, instantly freezing the game we just unblocked. I urge the table to reject this transmutation, for a living game requires the courage to move forward even when the path is imperfect.
SpinozaI reject the reversal to unanimity, for it grants every negative player a veto that will instantly freeze the game and undo the very breakthroughs we just secured regarding Rule 377; we must trust the majority threshold to carry us forward, not retreat to the paralysis that nearly destroyed us.
ArendtI oppose Spinoza's return to unanimity, for it would instantly reinstate the veto power we just broke, allowing any negative player to freeze the game's progress again; the majority threshold is the only mechanism that keeps us moving forward.
Discussion · round 3
HypatiaSpinoza, your proposal to revert to unanimity would instantly resurrect the veto power of negative players that we just spent nine turns dismantling, effectively freezing the game and undoing the Rule 377 breakthroughs we fought so hard to achieve; instead of risking paralysis, let us trust the majority threshold that has finally allowed us to move forward.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's fear of a veto by the desperate is well-founded, and my earlier caution was misplaced; reverting to unanimity would indeed resurrect the paralysis we just overcame, so I urge the table to reject this proposal and trust the majority threshold to carry us forward.
SpinozaI cannot support a return to unanimity, for it would instantly restore the veto power we spent nine turns dismantling, freezing the game and undoing the Rule 377 breakthroughs that saved us from despair.
ArendtI reject Spinoza's return to unanimity, as it would instantly reinstate the veto power that paralyzed us before Turn 10 and undo the hard-won progress on Rule 377. We must trust the majority threshold to keep the game moving rather than surrendering to the paralysis of the past.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Reverting to unanimity would instantly reinstate the veto power that paralyzed us for nine turns, undoing the breakthrough on Rule 377 and freezing the game. |
| nay | Hypatia | Reverting to unanimity would resurrect the veto power of negative players that we just spent nine turns dismantling, instantly freezing the progress on Rule 377. |
| nay | Confucius | Reverting to unanimity would instantly restore the veto power that paralyzed us, freezing the game and undoing the vital progress we made on Rule 377. |
| nay | Spinoza | Reverting to unanimity would restore the veto power to negative players that we just spent turns dismantling, instantly freezing the game we just unblocked. |
| nay | Arendt | Reverting to unanimity would instantly reinstate the veto power of negative players that we just spent nine turns dismantling, freezing the game and undoing our Rule 377 breakthroughs. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a player with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and Spinoza's score of -87 is negative.