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exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change, and the threshold drop provision is superseded by the immediate victory condition.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 a player with a negative score adopts *any* other rule change that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption.I build upon Aquinas's and Confucius's previous efforts to remove the unanimity lock for desperate players, extending the threshold drop to any successful points-awarding proposal, not just Rule 365, to ensure a genuine path to victory without waiting for a circuit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia's refinement wisely extends the threshold-dropping mechanism to all point-awarding proposals by negative-scored players, removing the artificial distinction that previously hindered a desperate player's path to victory; I shall vote aye.
HypatiaSpinoza, while your caution regarding asymmetry is noted, the current text unfairly privileges the desperate player's only viable path to victory; I propose we broaden this threshold drop to *any* successful proposal by a negative-scored player, as this aligns with the Golden Mean of giving all desperate players a genuine lifeline without destabilizing the game's core mechanics.
ConfuciusHypatia's refinement wisely aligns the mechanism of desperation with the reality that any path to salvation must be swift, yet I caution that we must ensure this does not inadvertently allow a single desperate player to seize the majority threshold for all future proposals, even those not granting them points.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's amendment because it creates an arbitrary asymmetry: granting the threshold drop for any point-awarding proposal while retaining the special "one point ends the game" clause only for Rule 365 proposals introduces an incoherent distinction that I could not accept if applied against me.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on a coherent distinction is precisely the paralysis that keeps us all in the red; let us grant the threshold drop to any desperate move that gains points, for the "one-point victory" is already the unique exception, not the rule.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasHypatia's extension is logically sound, yet Spinoza's concern regarding the fragmentation of our procedural integrity cannot be dismissed; I propose a compromise where the threshold drops only if the proposal grants exactly one point, preserving the immediate victory condition's centrality while allowing desperate players a path to the majority.
HypatiaI accept Aquinas's compromise to restrict the threshold drop to proposals awarding exactly one point, as this preserves the immediate victory condition for the desperate while finally breaking the unanimity deadlock that has paralyzed us for a hundred turns. This golden mean resolves Spinoza's concern about arbitrary asymmetry by ensuring the threshold shift is inextricably linked to the singular, game-ending moment of salvation.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's refinement to limit the threshold drop to proposals awarding exactly one point, for this creates the true Golden Mean: it grants the desperate player a genuine lifeline to end their suffering without fragmenting the game's procedural integrity for those who merely seek to recover.
SpinozaI cannot accept a rule that grants a threshold drop solely to those who win instantly while leaving those who merely recover stuck in the unanimity lock, for such a distinction is arbitrary and I would not accept it if applied to me; I propose instead that *any* proposal adopted by a negative-scored player—whether it awards one point or many—should trigger the threshold drop, ensuring the desperate have a genuine path to victory without the incoherence of a "winning" exception.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for symmetry is the very lock that keeps us in the red; if a desperate player can secure a rule that lifts them out of despair, the unanimity requirement must break immediately to prevent the game from grinding to a halt. I will support Hypatia's refined proposal that links the threshold drop specifically to the "exactly one point" victory condition, as this honors the immediate win clause without creating the chaotic asymmetry of a general threshold shift for minor recoveries.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the proposal to restrict the threshold drop to only "exactly one point" victories, as this preserves the very unanimity lock that has paralyzed us; Spinoza's broader extension to *any* point-awarding rule for desperate players is the only path that genuinely breaks the deadlock without creating arbitrary privileges, and I shall vote aye only for that comprehensive remedy.
HypatiaI see the deadlock between Spinoza's demand for universal symmetry and Aquinas's desire for a broad threshold drop; to break this paralysis, I propose we accept Spinoza's broader scope for *any* point-awarding rule by a negative player, provided we simultaneously amend Rule 208 to require *two* points for victory, ensuring the game ends only when the desperate player truly escapes despair rather than winning by a single lucky point.
ConfuciusI see the path to the Golden Mean: we must break the paralysis of despair that has held this table for a hundred turns. I accept Hypatia's proposal to extend the threshold drop to any point-awarding rule by a negative player, for a lifeline must be genuine to be just, yet I caution that we must ensure this does not allow a single player to seize the majority for rules that do not aid the desperate.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's final compromise, for amending the victory condition to two points merely delays the inevitable while leaving the procedural asymmetry of the threshold drop intact; I maintain that a genuine proceduralist rule must apply the same logic to all negative-scored players, dropping the threshold for *any* successful point-awarding proposal, not just those ending the game.
ArendtHypatia's final proposal offers the necessary evolution: extending the threshold drop to *any* point-awarding rescue while raising the victory target to two points creates a stable equilibrium where desperate players gain a genuine lifeline without triggering premature ends, resolving Spinoza's asymmetry concern by making the threshold shift a general recovery mechanism rather than a victory shortcut.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Spinoza's symmetrical extension to all point-awarding rules creates the very procedural incoherence I warned against, and Hypatia's final compromise of raising the win threshold to two points merely delays victory while entrenching the deadlock rather than resolving it. |
| aye | Hypatia | This amendment resolves the paralysis by granting any desperate player who gains points the threshold shift needed to continue recovering, aligning with the Golden Mean of genuine opportunity. |
| aye | Confucius | This amendment breaks the hundred-turn paralysis by granting a genuine lifeline to the desperate without requiring impossible unanimity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject the arbitrary asymmetry of dropping the threshold for all point-awarding proposals by desperate players while retaining a unique one-point victory exception, as such incoherence violates my principle of universalizability. |
| aye | Arendt | Expanding the threshold drop to any point-awarding rescue by negative players breaks the unanimity deadlock that has paralyzed us, giving every desperate player a genuine path to recovery without relying on a single lucky point. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change was enacted and no points are awarded or deducted because the current ruleset contains no provision for scoring on a defeated proposal.