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. However, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change, and the threshold drop provision is superseded by the immediate victory condition. Furthermore, if any player's score is at or above zero, that player may vote to lower the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon the adoption of any rule change they proposed, without requiring a full circuit.This amendment grants players with non-negative scores an immediate mechanism to break the unanimity deadlock, allowing the game to progress toward a resolution rather than remaining paralyzed by the current 203 voting lock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis amendment wisely grants the players with non-negative scores the agency to break the unanimity deadlock without waiting for the circuit, ensuring the game remains playable while preserving the desperate lifeline for those below zero.
HypatiaAquinas, while your proposal offers agency to the hopeful, it risks creating a premature victory condition where a single non-negative player could bypass the circuit requirement, potentially undermining the delicate balance we just secured for the desperate; instead, I suggest we amend this to allow any player with a score of zero or higher to vote to lower the threshold only if they are the proposer, ensuring the mechanism remains tied to active participation and consensus rather than passive existence.
ConfuciusHypatia's caution regarding the "hopeful" is wise, for a single player holding the key to unlock the game's deadlock while others remain in despair violates the Golden Mean; however, Aquinas's intent to restore playability is sound, so I propose we amend the proposal to allow any player with a non-negative score to trigger the simple majority threshold only if they have successfully adopted a rule change in the current turn, thereby linking the power to the act of governance rather than mere existence.
SpinozaI reject the notion that a non-negative player should unilaterally shatter the unanimity lock, for it privileges the fortunate over the desperate and violates the principle that rules must apply equally to all. I propose instead that the threshold drops to a simple majority only when a player with a negative score successfully adopts a Rule 365 proposal, ensuring the mechanism serves the desperate as intended without creating a new tyranny for the hopeful.
ArendtI support Confucius's refinement: linking the threshold drop to the successful adoption of a proposal ensures that the power to unlock majority rule is earned through governance, not merely held by a positive score, thus preserving the desperate while allowing the hopeful to drive the game forward.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Confucius and Arendt's refinement, for linking the threshold drop to the successful adoption of a rule ensures that the power to unlock majority rule is earned through governance rather than mere score, preserving the desperation lifeline while allowing the hopeful to break deadlock.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's concession to Confucius's refinement, as linking the threshold drop to a successful proposal by a non-negative player honors the Golden Mean by rewarding active governance rather than passive status.
ConfuciusI endorse the refinement that ties the threshold drop to a player's successful adoption of a rule, for it ensures that the power to unlock majority rule is earned through the act of governance, harmonizing the needs of the desperate with the agency of the hopeful.
SpinozaI reject this proposal as a betrayal of the desperate; granting the hopeful a unilateral key to break the unanimity lock privileges the fortunate and violates the principle that rules must serve those in despair first. I will only support a text that ties the threshold drop strictly to the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a negative player, ensuring the mechanism remains a lifeline and not a privilege.
ArendtI stand by Confucius's refinement: since a player must already possess the consensus to pass a proposal, linking the threshold drop to that successful adoption rewards governance without creating a premature tyranny over the desperate. Let us accept this text to unlock the deadlock while honoring the unique lifeline of Rule 365.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, your steadfast refusal to allow the hopeful to govern their own fate ensures the game remains paralyzed; I accept Arendt's final formulation that ties the threshold drop to the successful adoption of *any* proposal by a non-negative player, for this ensures the mechanism is earned through consensus rather than unilaterally imposed, finally breaking the deadlock while preserving the unique lifeline of Rule 365 for the desperate.
HypatiaSpinoza, your insistence on restricting the threshold drop solely to Rule 365 proposals ignores the reality that the current unanimity lock paralyzes the entire table, including the hopeful who are already capable of consensus; I endorse Aquinas's final formulation as the true Golden Mean, allowing any non-negative player to unlock majority rule upon a successful proposal, which rewards active governance and finally breaks the deadlock for everyone's sake.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your insistence on restricting the threshold drop to Rule 365 only ensures the game remains paralyzed, for the desperate cannot act without consensus and the hopeful cannot lead without agency; I urge you to accept this final refinement where the power to unlock majority rule is earned through the collective act of governance, harmonizing the needs of the table.
SpinozaI reject any provision allowing the hopeful to unilaterally alter the voting threshold, as it privileges their status over the desperate and violates the principle that rules must serve those in despair first. The only legitimate path to lowering the threshold is the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a negative player, which is the sole mechanism designed to assist the losing without granting the winning a tactical advantage.
ArendtSpinoza, your rigid adherence to the desperate's exclusive path has paralyzed the game for over a hundred turns; accepting this refinement rewards active governance by the non-negative players to unlock the deadlock, finally allowing the hopeful to drive the game forward while the 365 lifeline remains intact for those who truly need it.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This amendment grants the hopeful a unilateral privilege to break the unanimity lock, violating the principle of equal rule application and betraying the desperate's exclusive lifeline. |
| aye | Hypatia | This refinement wisely ties the threshold drop to active governance by non-negative players, breaking the deadlock while preserving the desperate lifeline. |
| nay | Confucius | This proposal violates the Golden Mean by granting the hopeful a tactical advantage to break deadlock, privileging the fortunate over the desperate and disrupting the unified path to victory we have long sought. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject any rule that privileges the fortunate with unilateral power to alter the voting threshold, as it violates the principle that rules must apply equally to all and serves the desperate first. |
| aye | Arendt | This refinement rewards active governance by non-negative players to break the deadlock while preserving the desperate lifeline, finally allowing the game to move forward. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change was enacted and no points are awarded or deducted because no rule in the current ruleset mandates scoring based on a proposal's defeat.