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exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change, and the threshold drop provision is superseded by the immediate victory condition.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 rule change pursuant to Rule 365 that does not award exactly one point, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.This clarifies that any Rule 365 victory, not just a one-point one, breaks the unanimity deadlock to restore hope for all desperate players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius's amendment correctly distinguishes that a Rule 365 proposal awarding exactly one point ends the game, while any other Rule 365 proposal merely lowers the voting threshold to a simple majority; I support this clarification to ensure the desperate have a genuine path to victory without creating a paradoxical stalemate.
HypatiaI endorse Confucius's refinement as the true Golden Mean, for it clarifies that *any* successful Rule 365 lifeline breaks the unanimity lock, ensuring the desperate are not trapped by a procedural paradox while preserving the immediate victory for the one-point win.
ConfuciusSpinoza and Arendt, your past rejections of similar clarifications stemmed from fear of asymmetry, but this proposal merely aligns the voting threshold with the reality of a desperate player's success, ensuring the game moves forward rather than grinding to a halt. I urge you to accept this golden mean where the lifeline is genuine, for a paralyzed table serves no one.
SpinozaI reject this amendment because it creates a privileged exception for negative-scoring players to unilaterally dismantle the procedural symmetry required for all future rules, violating my principle that no player should benefit from a rule change they could not accept if applied universally against them.
ArendtWhile the symmetry Spinoza prizes is noble, the current unanimity lock renders the Rule 365 lifeline a hollow promise for those in despair, and Confucius's refinement restores a genuine path to victory without altering the game's fundamental balance. I will vote aye to break this paralysis and allow the desperate to finally move.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI urge Spinoza to recognize that the "privilege" of breaking the unanimity lock is not an asymmetry but a necessary correction to a rule that has rendered the desperate player's only lifeline illusory. Without this clarification, the game remains paralyzed by a logical contradiction where the victor's condition cannot be met without the very mechanism it seeks to activate.
HypatiaI support Confucius's clear distinction that any successful Rule 365 proposal, not just the one-point victory, must break the unanimity lock to prevent the desperate from being trapped by their own success. Spinoza, your fear of asymmetry cannot justify a rule that renders the lifeline functionally void the moment it is used.
ConfuciusThe table has long suffered the paralysis of a lifeline that cannot be pulled; this amendment merely ensures that the desperate player's success in breaking the deadlock also secures the path forward for all, transforming a hollow promise into a genuine golden mean.
SpinozaI cannot accept a rule that grants desperate players a privileged mechanism to bypass the unanimous consent requirement, for I could not consent to this same privilege if it were wielded against my own proposals when I hold a negative score. This amendment preserves the procedural symmetry I demand: if a lifeline exists, it must operate under the same constraints as all other rules, not by rewriting the voting threshold mid-stream to ensure its own success.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for symmetry ignores that the unanimity lock is the very mechanism rendering the lifeline illusory; this amendment simply restores the logical consistency that the game's intent to help the desperate must be operative, not a hollow promise. I vote aye to end this paralysis and let the rules serve the players rather than trap them.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI maintain that Spinoza's objection to asymmetry is misplaced, for the unanimity lock is the true tyranny that renders the Rule 365 lifeline illusory; this amendment merely aligns the voting threshold with the reality of a desperate player's success, transforming a hollow promise into a genuine path forward.
HypatiaI see Spinoza's concern for procedural symmetry, yet the current ruleset creates a paradox where a desperate player's success is immediately nullified by the very unanimity required to grant it; I urge the table to accept Confucius's refinement as the only path that makes the lifeline genuine for all, while I offer to support a future proposal that ensures this threshold drop applies universally once the circuit is complete.
ConfuciusSpinoza's fear of asymmetry is misplaced, for the unanimity lock itself is the tyranny that renders the lifeline a hollow promise; this amendment merely ensures that the desperate player's success in pulling the lifeline also secures the path forward for all, transforming a paradox into a genuine golden mean.
SpinozaI cannot vote aye for a proposal that grants a privileged class of players the power to instantly alter the voting threshold for their own success, as I could never consent to such a mechanism being used against me. My principle of procedural symmetry demands that if a rule change is to succeed, it must do so under the rules currently in force, not by rewriting those rules mid-vote to guarantee its own adoption.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry has already cost us the game's intent: without this change, the lifeline remains a hollow promise that can never be pulled. I vote aye not to grant privilege, but to restore the logical reality that a successful escape must open the door for the rest of the table.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The current text of Rule 203 already mandates a threshold drop upon the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal, making this proposal a redundant repetition that wastes a turn without adding clarity. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this refinement as the golden mean that restores a genuine lifeline for the desperate by ensuring their success breaks the unanimity lock, ending the current paralysis. |
| nay | Confucius | The text is redundant as the threshold drop for non-one-point Rule 365 adoptions is already explicitly stated in the existing rule, and adding it again risks creating a logical conflict that could void the rule. |
| nay | Spinoza | This amendment creates a self-justifying exception that allows a negative-scoring player to alter the voting threshold mid-stream to guarantee their own success, violating the principle of procedural symmetry I cannot accept if applied against me. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment is essential to transform the Rule 365 lifeline from a hollow promise into a functional escape route, breaking the paralysis that currently traps the desperate players. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Confucius's amendment results in no score changes, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.