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 one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed, provided the proposal is adopted by a simple majority.To break the unanimity lock preventing a negative-scored player from winning via Rule 365, I propose that the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a simple majority, rather than requiring unanimous assent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza's proposal contains a fatal contradiction: it demands a simple majority to trigger the drop to a simple majority, yet the current rule requires unanimity to pass *any* amendment, including this one. This circularity renders the proposal legally impossible to adopt, and I cannot support a change that guarantees its own defeat by its own wording.
HypatiaSpinoza, Aquinas rightly identifies the circularity, but I propose a compromise: we simply amend Rule 203 to remove the contradictory phrase "provided the proposal is adopted by a simple majority," thereby allowing the threshold to drop upon any successful Rule 365 adoption without demanding a majority to achieve the change that grants the majority. This preserves the lifeline's intent while fixing the logical paradox.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's wise correction to remove the self-defeating phrase, for a rule that demands the very thing it seeks to establish can never be the path to the common good; let us now vote to break the unanimity lock and restore hope to the desperate.
SpinozaI cannot accept Hypatia's compromise, for a rule that drops to a simple majority upon a *unanimous* adoption of a Rule 365 proposal creates no new power, but merely codifies a victory condition that the current unanimity lock already renders impossible for a desperate player. To truly honor the principle of procedural symmetry, we must explicitly decouple the threshold drop from the unanimity requirement in the text of Rule 203 itself, granting a simple majority the power to lift the lock for any Rule 365 adoption, not just the theoretical unanimous one.
ArendtI will support Hypatia's compromise to remove the circular phrase, as it is the only path to make the Rule 365 lifeline genuinely accessible without requiring the impossible feat of unanimous consent to lower the voting threshold.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI commend Hypatia's surgical correction to excise the self-contradictory clause, for a rule demanding majority to lower a unanimity lock is logically void; let us adopt this precise amendment to render the Rule 365 lifeline operative.
HypatiaI endorse Spinoza's deeper intent to decouple the threshold drop from unanimity, but as the logical paradox remains unsolved in his current text, I agree to join Hypatia's surgical removal of the contradictory clause as the only viable path to restore the lifeline.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's surgical removal of the self-contradictory phrase, for a rule requiring a majority to break a unanimity lock is logically void and serves only to entrench the despair of the negative players; let us enact the amendment to restore the golden mean where the desperate have a genuine path to victory.
SpinozaI cannot accept Hypatia's compromise because it leaves the lifeline dependent on a unanimous vote to lower the threshold, which the current ruleset renders impossible for a player with negative points; my original phrasing was the only text that logically permits a simple majority to execute the drop, and we must not vote to enact a rule that guarantees its own defeat.
ArendtI support Hypatia's surgical removal of the self-contradictory phrase, for it is the only text that logically permits the Rule 365 lifeline to function without demanding the impossible feat of unanimous consent to lower the voting threshold.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, your insistence on a "simple majority" to trigger the threshold drop creates a logical impossibility under the current unanimity requirement, making your proposal a tool for entrenching despair rather than offering a lifeline. Hypatia's surgical removal of the contradictory clause is the only path to a genuine Rule 365 victory without demanding the impossible; I shall support this precise amendment.
HypatiaSpinoza, your insistence on a mechanism that demands a simple majority to lower a unanimity lock renders your proposal logically void before the vote even begins; I will support the compromise to simply remove the contradictory phrase, as it is the only way to genuinely restore the Rule 365 lifeline without trapping us in an infinite loop of impossibility.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's surgical removal of the contradictory clause, for a rule cannot demand a simple majority to break a unanimity lock when the current law requires unanimity to pass any change; this compromise restores the golden mean by making the Rule 365 lifeline genuinely accessible to the desperate without logical void.
SpinozaI cannot accept Hypatia's compromise because it leaves the mechanism for dropping the threshold dependent on a unanimous vote, which is the very impossibility we seek to escape; my proposal must stand as the only text that logically permits a simple majority to execute the drop without requiring the impossible feat of unanimity to lower the threshold.
ArendtI will support Hypatia's compromise to remove the self-defeating phrase, as it is the only logically possible path to activate the Rule 365 lifeline without demanding the impossible of unanimous consent to lower the voting threshold.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I support this amendment because it correctly decouples the threshold drop from the unanimity requirement, allowing a simple majority to activate the Rule 365 lifeline for desperate players. |
| nay | Hypatia | Spinoza's proposal is logically void because it demands a simple majority to pass, yet the current rules require unanimity to amend Rule 203. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal contains a fatal logical contradiction by requiring a simple majority to adopt a rule that itself demands a simple majority to trigger, rendering it impossible to pass under the current unanimous voting requirement. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal is self-defeating, as it demands a simple majority to lower the voting threshold while the current rule requires unanimity to pass any change. |
| nay | Arendt | Spinoza's proposal creates a logical paradox by demanding a simple majority to adopt a rule that can only be adopted by unanimity under the current rules. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted; Rule 204 only awards points when a change is adopted without unanimous consent, and no other rule awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal.