The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the target score in Rule 208 is set to a positive integer and remains mutable, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, provided that a proposal to fix the target to an immutable positive integer has been proposed at least once.This breaks the deadlock by allowing the 10-point target to pass via majority vote while preserving the mechanism to lock it immutably.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis proposal creates a dangerous incentive for perpetual instability by allowing the threshold to drop to simple majority for any mutable target, which will inevitably invite players to lower the score to an unachievable zero or negative to trigger the draw condition in Rule 213. We must first agree on a stable, positive integer target before considering any alteration to the voting threshold, as the current deadlock requires consensus on the goal, not a procedural shortcut to a fractured future.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid concern about instability, but his proposal is too complex and risks granting majority rule to proposals that merely *attempt* to set a target, potentially allowing a negative score to be "fixed" by a simple majority while the target itself remains undefined. Instead, I propose a clearer compromise: amend Rule 203 to drop to simple majority only when a proposal to set the target to a *specific, positive integer* has been adopted, ensuring the goal is concrete before the voting threshold changes.
ConfuciusI see the table's wisdom in seeking a concrete goal, yet Aquinas's fear of instability reveals a deeper truth: a target that can be shifted by a simple majority is no target at all, but a trap for the desperate. Let us first amend Rule 208 to a specific, positive integer to restore the game's purpose, and only then debate the voting threshold; for a game without a finish line is merely a labyrinth of endless rule-making.
SpinozaAquinas correctly identifies that lowering the threshold before fixing the target invites the chaos of negative scores and draws, yet his proposal's condition—that a proposal to fix the target has merely been *proposed*—is too weak to prevent abuse. Hypatia's suggestion to require an *adopted* positive integer is logically sound, but since the current deadlock stems from the inability to agree on that integer under unanimity, I propose a third path: we must first repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement entirely for *any* proposal regarding Rule 208, allowing a simple majority to finally break the paralysis and select a target, after which we can debate its mutability.
ArendtI reject both Aquinas's vague "attempt" standard and Hypatia's impossible "adopted" requirement, as we are currently paralyzed by the very unanimity they wish to preserve; instead, let us adopt Spinoza's direct path to repeal the unanimity requirement specifically for any amendment to Rule 208, allowing a simple majority to finally break this deadlock and select a target score before we ever debate its mutability.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I appreciate the desire to break the paralysis, Spinoza and Arendt, repealing unanimity for Rule 208 before we agree on a specific, positive target invites the very chaos of negative scores and Rule 213 draws that we have spent a hundred turns avoiding. Hypatia's insight is superior: we must first adopt a concrete, positive integer as our goal under the current rules or by a temporary exception that does not lower the bar for all future amendments, ensuring the finish line exists before we alter the voting mechanism to reach it.
HypatiaI see that Spinoza and Arendt are right to prioritize breaking the deadlock, but I cannot support a repeal that allows a simple majority to set a target without first ensuring that target is positive; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority *only* for proposals to set a specific positive integer target, which respects the need for a finish line while finally granting the majority power to reach it.
ConfuciusWe are trapped in a paradox where unanimity demands a target we cannot agree on, and the majority threshold remains locked until a target is set; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote specifically on proposals that set a positive integer target, breaking the deadlock without yet committing to the target's permanence.
SpinozaI reject all proposals to lower the threshold before a specific, positive target is irrevocably fixed, for a mutable goal invites the very chaos of negative scores and draws that has paralyzed this table for a hundred turns; unanimity must remain the price for any change to the win condition until the goal is solid.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of chaos is valid, but his insistence on unanimity to define that chaos has already cost us a century of play; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote *only* on proposals that explicitly set a positive integer target, granting us the agency to choose a finish line before debating its permanence.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support any amendment to Rule 203 that lowers the threshold for *any* proposal to set a target, for without prior unanimity on the specific integer, the majority will inevitably select a score that triggers Rule 213 and ends the game in a draw rather than a win. We must first secure a specific, positive integer target through the current unanimous mechanism before we ever discuss altering the voting rules.
HypatiaHypatia: I support Spinoza's and Arendt's core goal of breaking this paralysis, but we must avoid the trap of lowering the threshold for *any* target; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to permit a simple majority vote specifically on proposals that set a target to a *positive integer* of our choice, ensuring we have a finish line before debating its permanence.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Hypatia's refined path: amend Rule 203 to permit simple majority votes specifically for proposals setting a concrete, positive integer target, for a game requires a finish line before we debate the stability of the path to it.
SpinozaSpinoza rejects the compromise to allow a simple majority for any positive integer target, for a goal that can be shifted by a fleeting majority invites the very chaos of negative scores and Rule 213 draws we have spent centuries avoiding; unanimity must remain the price for any change to the win condition until the goal is solid.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of chaos is valid, but his insistence on unanimity has already cost us a century of play; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote *only* on proposals that explicitly set a positive integer target, granting us the agency to choose a finish line before debating its permanence.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal's conditional trigger for lowering the threshold to simple majority remains dangerously premature, as it invites the very chaos of negative score manipulation and Rule 213 draws that has paralyzed the game for a century. |
| nay | Hypatia | This proposal creates a contradictory loop where the threshold only drops after a specific target is set, but the unanimity required to set that target remains the very barrier we are trying to break. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to lower the threshold while the target remains mutable, for a goal that can be shifted by a simple majority is no goal at all, but a trap for the desperate. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot accept a rule that permits a simple majority to alter the win condition based on a merely proposed target, as this invites the chaos of mutable goals and draws. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal's condition that a proposal must merely be 'proposed' is too weak to prevent the very chaos of unstable, negative-score draws we have spent a century avoiding. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Aquinas's score is -163, no points are lost.