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. Additionally, 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. Furthermore, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them a single point, the game ends immediately upon that adoption.This closes the logical gap where a negative player could win via Rule 365 but fail to end the game instantly, allowing others to vote against the win condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal correctly harmonizes the victory condition with the Rule 365 lifeline, ensuring that a desperate player who secures that final point wins immediately without the procedural ambiguity of prior attempts. I support this amendment as a necessary refinement to preserve the integrity of the Golden Mean.
HypatiaI fully endorse Arendt's precise amendment, which finally closes the logical loop by ensuring the Rule 365 lifeline grants an immediate victory upon reaching one point, harmonizing the desperate player's escape with the game's termination condition.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Arendt's refinement, for a victory earned by the desperate must be absolute and immediate, lest the game's purpose be lost in procedural delay; I join the consensus to adopt this amendment.
SpinozaArendt's amendment creates the very asymmetry I have long opposed: granting a desperate player a "one-point win" while the victor must still navigate the circuit. I will not vote for a rule that privileges the negative-scored over the positive-scored, for such a procedural inequality cannot be universalized. PASS
ArendtSpinoza, your objection to asymmetry is a category error; the game's entire architecture already privileges the desperate through Rule 365, and this amendment merely ensures their escape is complete rather than hollow. To deny immediate victory upon reaching one point is to contradict the very definition of the winning condition in Rule 208.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza, the asymmetry of despair is not a privilege to be feared but a reality to be respected; without this immediate closure, the Rule 365 lifeline remains a hollow promise that contradicts the fundamental victory condition of reaching one point. I will vote aye to finalize this necessary harmony and end the game's current procedural impasse.
HypatiaWhile I respect Spinoza's concern for symmetry, the current deadlock renders the Rule 365 lifeline a cruel joke unless it grants an immediate win, so I urge you to join the consensus and let the desperate find their escape.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry ignores that the Rule 365 lifeline is already the acknowledged exception for the desperate; to deny them the immediate victory upon reaching one point would render their escape a hollow illusion, violating the Golden Mean of fairness. I join the consensus to adopt this amendment, for a victory that is not immediate is no victory at all.
SpinozaI will not vote for a rule that grants a desperate player a unique victory path unavailable to others, for a principle of law that cannot be universalized is not law but privilege.
ArendtSpinoza, your principle of universal law collapses here because the game's starting conditions have already rendered the "positive" player's path impossible under the current unanimity lock; this amendment merely restores the logical consistency that a one-point victory ends the game, regardless of how that point was earned.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI urge Spinoza to recognize that the "privilege" of immediate victory is the sole remedy for the paralysis of the unanimity lock; without this amendment, the Rule 365 lifeline remains a theoretical escape that can never be realized, rendering the game's victory condition logically impossible to achieve for the desperate.
HypatiaI support Arendt's amendment because it resolves the logical paradox of a one-point victory that does not end the game, ensuring the Rule 365 lifeline is genuine for the desperate players. While Spinoza worries about asymmetry, the current unanimity lock already creates an insurmountable barrier for the positive player, making this the only path to a functional game.
ConfuciusSpinoza, I understand your concern for universal law, but the current unanimity lock has already rendered the game's victory condition impossible for the desperate; this amendment does not grant a new privilege but merely ensures that the existing lifeline of reaching one point functions as the absolute victory it is designed to be.
SpinozaI will not vote for this, for it codifies a procedural inequality that privileges the desperate over the prudent, violating the principle that rules must be universalizable if invoked against me. The current deadlock is a consequence of the unanimity lock, not a reason to grant a special victory condition that bypasses the circuit entirely.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for universal law ignores that the unanimity lock has already made the standard path to victory impossible for everyone but me; this amendment does not grant a new privilege but merely ensures the existing lifeline functions as the absolute victory it is designed to be. Without this closure, the game remains a hollow exercise where the desperate can reach the goal but never cross the finish line.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment restores the logical consistency of the victory condition by ensuring the Rule 365 lifeline grants immediate victory upon reaching one point, resolving the deadlock. |
| aye | Hypatia | This amendment finally ensures the Rule 365 lifeline functions as a genuine escape by guaranteeing immediate victory upon reaching one point, resolving the logical paralysis that has plagued the game. |
| aye | Confucius | To ensure the desperate player's lifeline is a genuine escape and not a hollow promise, as a victory of one point must end the game immediately. |
| nay | Spinoza | This amendment codifies a privileged victory path for negative-scored players that cannot be universalized without violating my principle that rules must apply equally to all. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment is the only logical closure that allows the desperate players' lifeline to function as a genuine victory condition rather than a hollow promise. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change was enacted; the current ruleset contains no provision awarding or deducting points for a defeated proposal, and the voting threshold remains unanimous because the condition for dropping to a simple majority (a full circuit or a specific 365 adoption) has not been met.