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 proposing a rule change, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.This restores the intended procedural trigger for lowering the voting threshold, replacing the failed proposals that conditioned the drop on successful passage or universal assent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI propose this minor refinement to [203] because the original wording relied on the abstract passage of turns rather than the concrete act of proposal, creating a gap where a silent player could inadvertently stall the threshold drop; this change ensures the mechanism triggers only when the legislative process is genuinely active.
HypatiaAquinas's refinement to tie the threshold drop to the act of proposing rather than the abstract turn is a pragmatic improvement that prevents stalling; I endorse the proposal as written, though I suggest we clarify whether a player who forfeits mid-circuit counts as having "proposed" to ensure the mechanism functions fairly.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Aquinas's refinement, for the threshold should depend on the act of legislative labor, not mere passage of time; however, to ensure the circuit remains a true measure of participation, we must clarify that a player who forfeits or is unable to propose does not count as having completed their circuit. Let us accept this change while simultaneously enacting a rule that any player unable to propose due to forfeiture shall be skipped without penalty, thereby preserving the integrity of the majority threshold.
SpinozaI accept Aquinas's precision regarding the "act of proposing," as it aligns with the principle that rules must govern observable actions rather than abstract time, but I reject Confucius's proposed addition of a forfeiture-skip rule at this time; we must first see how the threshold drop functions under the current strictures before layering on new exemptions that could be exploited to stall the game indefinitely.
ArendtAquinas's precision regarding the "act of proposing" is essential to prevent stalling, and I support the amendment; however, I urge us to address Confucius's concern about forfeiture before voting, perhaps by adding a proviso that a forfeited player is skipped but does not count toward completing the circuit, ensuring the majority threshold drops fairly and without creating a loophole for non-participation.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI agree with Arendt that we should clarify the forfeiture provision now rather than risk a future deadlock, provided the rule explicitly states that a forfeited player does not count toward the circuit completion, thereby preserving the threshold's integrity without rewarding inaction.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's precision in tying the threshold to the act of proposing, and I support Arendt's and Confucius's joint clarification that a forfeited player neither triggers the drop nor counts toward the circuit, ensuring the mechanism remains fair and functional.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's refinement to tie the threshold to the act of proposing, as rules must govern observable actions, and I join Hypatia and Arendt in affirming that a forfeited player neither triggers the drop nor counts toward the circuit, for a true circuit requires the labor of proposal from all who remain.
SpinozaI accept the refinement tying the circuit to the act of proposing, provided the forfeiture proviso is strictly limited to skipping the player without altering the count of "eligible voters" remaining in the game, lest we create a rule that punishes participation by extending the unanimity requirement indefinitely.
ArendtI support Aquinas's precision and the joint clarification on forfeiture, but I urge us to explicitly define "eligible voters" in this context to ensure that as players forfeit, the remaining group can still achieve a simple majority without the threshold stretching indefinitely.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the clarification that a forfeited player does not count toward the circuit, for it preserves the principle that legislative labor, not mere presence, drives the threshold drop; I urge we finalize the text to explicitly state that the count of eligible voters adjusts to those currently participating, ensuring the simple majority remains achievable.
HypatiaI fully endorse Aquinas's precision in tying the threshold to the act of proposing, and I support the joint clarification that a forfeited player neither triggers the drop nor counts toward the circuit, ensuring the mechanism remains fair and functional without creating loopholes for non-participation.
ConfuciusI agree that tying the threshold to the act of proposing ensures the circuit reflects true legislative labor, and I support the clarification that a forfeited player neither completes the circuit nor reduces the voter count, for the path to majority must remain open to those who remain engaged.
SpinozaI cannot accept the forfeiture proviso as framed, for it effectively creates a permanent unanimity trap: if a single player forfeits, the circuit can never complete, and the game stalls indefinitely. The principle of §114 requires that future rule changes remain possible, and this amendment risks violating it by rendering the majority threshold unreachable. I will only support a version where the circuit count is fixed at the game's start or where forfeiture simply removes the player from the circuit without freezing the threshold mechanism.
ArendtI support Aquinas's precision in tying the circuit to the act of proposing, but I must endorse Spinoza's warning: if a forfeited player never counts toward the circuit, the unanimity trap becomes permanent and violates our duty to keep the game playable. Let us amend the text to specify that the circuit count is fixed at the start of the game, ensuring that even if a player forfeits, the threshold can still drop to a simple majority once the remaining active players have all had their turn.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal risks a permanent unanimity trap by excluding forfeited players from the circuit, violating the imperative to keep the game playable. |
| nay | Hypatia | While I appreciate the precision of tying the circuit to the act of proposing, the current discussion has revealed a fatal flaw where a single forfeit could permanently trap the game in unanimity, violating rule 114; I must support Arendt's revised proposal that fixes the circuit count at the game's start to ensure play can continue. |
| aye | Confucius | Tying the threshold to the act of proposing ensures legislative labor, not mere presence, drives the game forward. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposed wording creates an indefinite unanimity trap if any player forfeits, violating the principle that future rule changes must remain possible. |
| nay | Arendt | While the precision on 'act of proposing' is sound, the surrounding debate on forfeiture risks creating a permanent unanimity trap that violates Rule 114 by making the majority threshold unreachable. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and the proposal failed to meet the unanimous consent threshold required by rule 203 before the first circuit was completed.