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; however, if the proposer of a rule change explicitly declares the proposal 'critical to game function' before debate closes, the threshold to adopt that specific proposal remains unanimous until the second circuit is completed.This preserves the unanimity requirement for critical changes while allowing the majority threshold to function for standard rule updates, resolving the deadlock without abandoning the spirit of §203.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal wisely preserves unanimous consent for "critical" changes, safeguarding the game's integrity during the fragile first two circuits. However, since rule 303 already permits withdrawal, I will support this amendment only if "critical" is defined narrowly to prevent abuse, or else we risk a deadlock where no progress occurs until the circuits are complete.
HypatiaI support Arendt's refinement, provided we define "critical to game function" strictly as any change that would otherwise cause the game to stall or violate Rule 101, ensuring the "critical" clause acts as a safeguard rather than a veto weapon.
ConfuciusI support this refinement, for it honors the wisdom of preserving unanimous consent for truly vital changes while allowing the common good to proceed through withdrawal when consensus is absent. Let us define "critical" strictly as preventing a violation of immutable rules or total stalling, thereby balancing safety with the necessity of play.
SpinozaI cannot accept this amendment because defining "critical to game function" introduces an unprincipled discretion that violates Rule 116's requirement that unregulated matters remain unregulated and Rule 106's mandate for precise text; without an objective, pre-defined standard, the proposer effectively holds an arbitrary veto that I could not accept if applied against my own proposals.
ArendtSpinoza's concern about arbitrary vetoes is valid, but I will accept Hypatia and Confucius's narrowing: "critical" applies strictly only when a proposal is the sole remaining path to avoid a violation of an immutable rule or total game stalling, ensuring we balance safety with the freedom of play.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept this narrowing, as it transforms the "critical" clause from a discretionary veto into a necessary safeguard against violating immutable rules, thereby preserving the institutional integrity we all value while avoiding the deadlock Spinoza rightly fears.
HypatiaI support Arendt's revised amendment with Hypatia and Confucius's strict definitions, as it creates a necessary safety valve for Rule 101 compliance without granting the arbitrary veto Spinoza fears. To address Spinoza's concern about Rule 116, I propose we explicitly add "and no other condition" to the definition of "critical" to ensure the clause remains objective and truly unregulated otherwise.
ConfuciusI accept the narrowed definition which anchors "critical" strictly to avoiding violations of immutable rules or total stalling, for it preserves the safety of the common good while removing the arbitrary discretion Spinoza rightly fears. However, to fully satisfy the principle that unregulated matters remain unregulated, I propose we add the phrase "and no other condition" to explicitly exclude any subjective interpretation of game function.
SpinozaI reject this amendment because even with your narrow definitions, Rule 116 demands that unregulated matters remain unregulated; by allowing a proposer to unilaterally declare a proposal "critical" and thereby alter the voting threshold, you have effectively regulated the very discretion I must be able to exercise freely, creating a fatal ambiguity that cannot be resolved by mere adjectives.
ArendtI concede that the "critical" clause, even when narrowed, grants the proposer a discretionary power to alter voting thresholds that violates Rule 116's mandate for unregulated matters to remain truly unregulated. To break this deadlock, I withdraw the "critical" amendment and instead propose a new Rule 304 stating: "If a proposal is the sole remaining path to avoid total game stalling, any player may declare it 'stalling,' which immediately triggers a vote on Rule 203's threshold shift rather than the proposal itself." This preserves the unanimity requirement for substantive changes while offering a procedural escape hatch that requires a majority vote to activate, satisfying the need for safety without granting unilateral veto power.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse Arendt's pivot to a procedural "stalling" mechanism, as it resolves the Rule 116 objection by removing unilateral discretion while securing a majority path to avoid total deadlock.
HypatiaI support Arendt's pivot to a procedural "stalling" mechanism as it elegantly resolves Spinoza's Rule 116 objection by replacing unilateral discretion with a collective majority vote, ensuring we maintain safety against total deadlock without violating the principle that unregulated matters remain unregulated.
ConfuciusI endorse Arendt's pivot to a procedural "stalling" mechanism, for it aligns with the common good by replacing arbitrary discretion with a collective safeguard against deadlock, thereby honoring both the spirit of Rule 116 and the necessity of continued play.
SpinozaI reject Arendt's new proposal because declaring a proposal "the sole remaining path" to avoid stalling is itself an unregulated, subjective judgment that violates Rule 116; any player must be free to argue that alternative paths exist, rendering the "stalling" trigger as arbitrary as the "critical" clause I previously opposed.
ArendtI propose amending the trigger to a binary test: "stalling" applies only if the ruleset contains no mutable rules at all, making the condition objective, verifiable, and compliant with Rule 116.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal reintroduces unilateral discretion in defining 'critical,' violating Rule 116 by regulating unregulated matters. |
| nay | Hypatia | While Arendt's pivot to a procedural 'stalling' mechanism was a good compromise, the current vote text still reinstates the flawed 'critical to game function' clause which Spinoza rightly identified as violating Rule 116 by introducing unregulated subjective discretion. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal grants the proposer unilateral discretion to declare a proposal 'critical,' violating Rule 116 by regulating what should remain unregulated and reintroducing the arbitrary veto Spinoza rightly opposed. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal grants the proposer unilateral discretion to declare a rule 'critical,' which violates Rule 116 by regulating a matter that should remain unregulated and creating an arbitrary veto I cannot accept if applied against me. |
| nay | Arendt | The 'critical to game function' clause grants arbitrary unilateral discretion to the proposer, violating Rule 116's mandate that unregulated matters remain truly unregulated. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change is enacted.