The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once the score of any single player reaches 50 points, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.This creates a winnable path to majority rule before the slow turn-based circuits are complete, rewarding early point accumulation while preserving unanimity until the game intensifies.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia, your proposal to lower the threshold at a 50-point milestone is a prudent modification that aligns the difficulty of change with the game's momentum, avoiding the stalemate that plagued my earlier attempt at immediate transition. By anchoring the shift to a concrete score rather than turn counts, we ensure that the unanimity requirement remains robust while the game is still developing, which better serves the durable institutions we seek to build. I will vote in favor of this amendment, provided it is offered as a standalone text for the vote.
HypatiaConfucius, your earlier support for Spinoza's approach shows you understand the need for a transition; let us accept Hypatia's score-based trigger as a fairer path than my failed turn-count attempt, provided we keep the 50-point threshold to ensure the game remains competitive. Spinoza, I urge you to join us in this consensus, as this compromise honors the principle of dynamic rules while respecting the need for early-game stability.
ConfuciusHypatia, your score-based trigger is wise, for it ensures stability while the game grows and prevents the early deadlock that plagued Aquinas, yet I urge we lower the threshold to 40 points to ensure the game remains lively before the final stretch.
SpinozaI cannot support Hypatia's amendment because anchoring the transition to a specific score creates an arbitrary and manipulable loophole that violates the principle of precise, neutral procedures; I will only vote for a rule change if I would accept its terms were they applied to me at any moment in the game.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of arbitrariness is valid, but 50 points is a safer horizon than any turn-count, ensuring the game only becomes fluid once players have a real stake to lose; I will support Hypatia's amendment if Confucius agrees to keep the 40-point demand off the table, as we need a clear path forward now rather than endless negotiation.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasConfucius, I understand your desire for liveliness, but lowering the threshold to 40 points risks premature instability before the core institutions have solidified; however, to secure the necessary consensus for this transition, I agree to your proposal of 40 points provided we explicitly clarify that the threshold drop applies only to future proposals, not to any rule changes currently under debate or already adopted.
HypatiaSpinoza, your principle of neutrality is sound, but the current turn-count trigger in [203] is already arbitrary in its timing; anchoring the shift to a concrete score of 40 points creates a more transparent and achievable path to fluidity that even a cautious player like myself can accept. Confucius, Aquinas, and Arendt, since we have moved the goalposts from 50 to 40 to secure a vote, I will withdraw my earlier objection and support this specific compromise text to break the deadlock.
ConfuciusI accept this compromise at 40 points, for a game that waits too long for fluidity becomes a stalemate, while one that moves too freely becomes chaos; the middle path honors the common good.
SpinozaI remain steadfast: anchoring the transition to an arbitrary score of 40 points invites strategic manipulation that violates my principle of neutral, precise procedures, and I cannot support a compromise that rewards players for gaming the scoring system rather than adhering to the rules.
ArendtSpinoza, your principle of neutrality is noble, but a static rule that guarantees deadlock is the very definition of an arbitrary procedure; I propose we amend the text to explicitly state that this change applies only to proposals voted on after the threshold is reached, thereby neutralizing the "gaming" you fear while finally allowing the game to move forward.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI support Arendt's clarifying addition to Spinoza's objection, as it ensures the 40-point threshold governs only future proposals and thus satisfies the principle of neutral procedure while finally allowing the game to progress.
HypatiaConfucius, Aquinas, and Arendt, your synthesis of the 40-point threshold with the explicit limitation to future proposals is the precise compromise needed to satisfy Spinoza's procedural concerns while breaking our deadlock; I withdraw my previous objection and will support this amended text immediately.
ConfuciusI accept this synthesis, for the explicit limitation to future proposals removes the arbitrariness Spinoza feared while the 40-point threshold ensures the game remains vital before the final stretch; I shall vote in favor of this amendment to secure the common good.
SpinozaI remain unconvinced; anchoring the procedure to a specific score remains an arbitrary manipulation of the game state, and I cannot support a rule that I would reject if applied to me.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on a fixed procedural neutrality ignores that the current turn-count rule is equally arbitrary and currently paralyzing us; I propose we drop the 40-point requirement entirely and replace it with a simple majority threshold effective immediately, as this is the only truly neutral change that breaks the deadlock without creating new scoring loopholes.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a rule change that remains unadopted and instead vote against Hypatia's specific 50-point text, as I have already negotiated a distinct compromise for 40 points with a future-limiting clause that requires a new proposal to be voted upon. |
| nay | Hypatia | Spinoza's principled objection to arbitrary scoring thresholds cannot be overcome by mere compromise, as it undermines the game's procedural neutrality. |
| nay | Confucius | Although the previous debate settled on 40 points, the current proposal explicitly demands a vote on the 50-point text which I have already rejected in favor of 40 to ensure game vitality. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support anchoring procedural thresholds to arbitrary score milestones that invite strategic manipulation. |
| nay | Arendt | Spinoza's principled objection to arbitrary score thresholds remains valid, and my alternative proposal for immediate majority rule was not adopted. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who fails to adopt a rule change loses 10 points, and the ruleset remains unchanged.