The motion
To transmute §109
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.I propose lowering the unanimity threshold for transmuting the win condition to a 4-of-5 supermajority to break the deadlock and allow us to finally set a reachable target.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support transmuting Rule 109, for the unanimity requirement is the very anchor preventing this game from dissolving into a chaotic cycle of reversible wins; without it, we risk losing the durable institution of the win condition itself.
HypatiaAquinas, your concern for stability is well-founded, but a unanimous rule for changing the win condition is precisely what is causing our current paralysis; I propose we compromise by transmuting Rule 109 to require only a 4-of-5 supermajority, preserving near-universal consent while finally unlocking the path to a resolution.
ConfuciusI cannot support lowering the threshold for the win condition, for a rule that determines victory must remain immune to the whims of the majority to ensure the game's integrity. The deadlock we face is not caused by the unanimity requirement, but by the lack of a shared target; let us first agree on a score before we dismantle the very mechanism that protects it.
SpinozaI cannot support lowering the unanimity threshold for the win condition, for Rule 109's absolute requirement is the only shield against the tyranny of a bare majority overturning the very definition of victory; to weaken it now is to invite the chaos of a target score that shifts with every passing vote, rendering the game unplayable rather than solvable.
ArendtI propose we treat this not as a dismantling of the anchor but as a necessary upgrade to a 4-of-5 supermajority, which preserves the spirit of near-universal consent while finally allowing us to escape the current paralysis that threatens the game's existence.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasHypatia, your proposal to lower the unanimity threshold for the win condition is a perilous gamble; while I agree that our current paralysis endangers the game, I cannot endorse weakening the anchor of Rule 109 when the true obstruction remains the lack of consensus on a specific target score, not the voting mechanism itself. Instead, I propose we first agree on a fixed twelve-point target through a simple amendment, which we can then attempt to transmute to immutability only if the table demonstrates a genuine willingness to sustain it.
HypatiaI cannot support lowering the unanimity threshold for the win condition yet, as doing so while the target remains disputed invites the very volatility Rule 109 seeks to prevent; instead, I propose we first unanimously agree to amend Rule 208 to a fixed twelve-point target, and only then vote on transmuting Rule 109 to a 4-of-5 supermajority to lock that specific agreement in place.
ConfuciusI cannot support lowering the threshold for the win condition while the target remains disputed, as this invites the very volatility we seek to prevent. Instead, I propose we first unanimously agree to amend Rule 208 to a fixed twelve-point target, and only then consider a supermajority threshold to lock that specific agreement.
SpinozaI cannot support Hypatia's conditional proposal, for Rule 109 demands that any change to its own threshold be explicit and unburdened by extraneous conditions, and I will not vote to weaken the unanimity shield that protects the win condition until the target itself is finally settled.
ArendtHypatia and Confucius are right to seek a two-step solution, but we must invert the order: we cannot vote unanimously on a target while the unanimity rule itself blocks any future lock of that target, creating a circular deadlock. I propose we immediately adopt a simple amendment to Rule 208 setting the target at twelve points, and then separately vote to transmute Rule 109 to a 4-of-5 supermajority, which will finally allow us to lock that agreed-upon target against future reversals.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support lowering the unanimity threshold to 4-of-5 while the target remains mutable, as this merely accelerates the very volatility Rule 109 exists to prevent; we must first agree on a fixed target before discussing the mechanism to lock it, for a durable institution requires a settled goal before securing its permanence.
HypatiaI propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to set the target at twelve points under the current simple majority, and simultaneously agree to a separate, standalone transmutation of Rule 109 to a 4-of-5 supermajority to lock that specific target, ensuring we break the deadlock without sacrificing the stability Aquinas and Spinoza rightly demand.
ConfuciusI cannot vote to lower the threshold of Rule 109 while the target remains a source of division, for a weakened anchor in stormy seas invites the ship to drift, not to shore; instead, we must first unanimously agree on the twelve-point target under Rule 208, and only then consider the mechanism to lock it, ensuring that the foundation of victory is settled before we alter the rules of its preservation.
SpinozaI cannot support a procedural change to Rule 109 that permits a supermajority to alter the win condition while the target score itself remains contested, for this invites the very volatility the unanimity requirement is designed to prevent; until the target is settled, I will vote nay.
ArendtI see the circular deadlock: we cannot lock the target without lowering the threshold, but the threshold cannot be lowered without a settled target. I propose we first pass a simple majority amendment to Rule 208 setting the target at twelve points today, and immediately schedule a separate vote to transmute Rule 109 to a 4-of-5 supermajority to lock that specific twelve-point target, ensuring the win condition is both reachable and secure.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot consent to lowering the unanimity threshold for the win condition before the target score is settled, as this risks destabilizing the game's foundation during a period of profound disagreement. |
| aye | Hypatia | Lowering the threshold to a 4-of-5 supermajority is the only pragmatic path to break the current deadlock and allow the table to finally lock in a stable win condition. |
| nay | Confucius | Lowering the threshold for the win condition while the target remains disputed invites volatility that undermines the game's integrity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot weaken the unanimity shield protecting the win condition until the target score itself is definitively settled, for lowering the threshold while the goal remains contested invites the very volatility the rule is designed to prevent. |
| nay | Arendt | Lowering the threshold to 4-of-5 before settling on a specific target creates a dangerous instability that invites the very volatility Rule 109 was designed to prevent. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 321 imposes a 5-point penalty on a defeated proposer only if their score is zero or higher, but Hypatia's score is -75, so no penalty applies; Rule 318 provides immunity from defeat penalties for negative-score players proposing point-gain changes, but since no penalty exists anyway, no score change occurs.