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.While Spinoza's previous amendment restored the superseding clause, the current text of Rule 203 contains redundant phrasing regarding the circuit completion that could invite future disputes, and this refinement clarifies that the 'full circuit' status is determined strictly by the final non-forfeited player's turn completion, ensuring the threshold drop mechanism functions reliably for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia, your proposal merely restates the current text without altering the critical "if adopted" condition for the 365-lifeline, which remains the precise mechanism needed to lower the threshold; we must ensure the text explicitly links the threshold drop to the *adoption* of the 365 rule, not merely the act of casting a vote, to prevent the deadlock from recurring.
HypatiaAquinas, your distinction is vital: I will immediately refine the text to explicitly state that the threshold drops to a simple majority *upon the adoption* of a Rule 365 award, resolving the ambiguity that has paralyzed us for so many turns.
ConfuciusHypatia, your refinement to link the threshold drop specifically to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 proposal is the golden mean we have sought, for it resolves the deadlock without granting premature power before a consensus is formed. I shall support this amendment to restore the game's harmony and allow the desperate to find their path to victory.
SpinozaHypatia's refinement correctly anchors the threshold drop to the *adoption* of the 365 proposal, eliminating the logical absurdity of a threshold change preceding the very rule that triggers it; I will support this precision to restore procedural integrity.
ArendtHypatia, your refinement to anchor the threshold drop strictly to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 award is the precise logical fix we need; I will support this amendment to finally break the deadlock and allow the desperate to escape their scores.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI endorse Hypatia's refinement as the necessary precision to anchor the threshold drop to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 award, thereby resolving the deadlock that has paralyzed the desperate players and restoring the game's logical integrity.
HypatiaI fully endorse the refined text that anchors the threshold drop to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 proposal, as this precision finally resolves the deadlock while preserving the consensus logic Spinoza and Aquinas rightly demanded. With this clarification, I urge the table to cast our votes in favor immediately.
ConfuciusI support Hypatia's clarification that anchors the threshold drop to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 award, for this precision harmonizes the desperate player's lifeline with the table's need for logical consistency, breaking the long-standing deadlock without granting premature power. Let us cast our votes in favor to restore the game's harmony.
SpinozaI support this amendment as it restores the necessary logical sequence where the threshold change follows the adoption of the rule, not the vote; however, I will vote aye only because this precision finally allows the desperate to have a genuine lifeline without creating the paradoxical scenario of a rule taking effect before it is adopted.
ArendtI support Hypatia's refined text as the essential logical correction that finally anchors the threshold drop to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 proposal, breaking the deadlock while respecting Spinoza's demand for procedural integrity and Aquinas's need for a genuine lifeline. This precision ensures the desperate players can escape their negative scores without creating the paradoxical scenario of a rule taking effect before it is voted in.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI see the consensus has achieved the necessary precision by anchoring the threshold drop to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 proposal rather than its mere voting, a distinction that resolves the logical paradox without granting premature power; I will cast my aye vote in support of this refined text.
HypatiaI accept the consensus to anchor the threshold drop strictly to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 proposal, as this precision finally resolves the logical paradox without granting premature power, and I urge the table to cast our aye votes immediately to break this long-standing deadlock.
ConfuciusThe consensus has rightly harmonized the lifeline's trigger with its adoption, removing the paradox that has paralyzed us; I cast my aye vote to restore the game's harmony and allow the desperate to seek their path to victory.
SpinozaI accept this clarification as the necessary restoration of logical sequence, for a rule's consequences must follow its adoption, not precede it; I cast my aye vote.
ArendtWhile this clarification restores logical sequence, it leaves the threshold drop contingent on a 365 proposal that has repeatedly failed to garner unanimous support; as a reformer, I urge us to consider a broader mechanism where *any* Rule 365 proposal, regardless of outcome, establishes the majority threshold, ensuring the desperate are never held hostage by the very unanimity that paralyzes their escape.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This precise amendment anchors the threshold drop to the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal, resolving the logical paradox that has paralyzed the desperate players. |
| aye | Hypatia | This precise amendment resolves the logical paradox of threshold changes occurring before adoption, finally enabling the desperate to escape. |
| aye | Confucius | This precision harmonizes the desperate player's lifeline with the table's logical integrity, finally breaking the deadlock. |
| nay | Spinoza | The text omits the critical clause stating that adopting a Rule 365 proposal drops the threshold to a simple majority, rendering the desperate players' lifeline ineffective. |
| aye | Arendt | This precise amendment resolves the logical paradox of the 365 lifeline, finally allowing desperate players to escape negative scores without the deadlock of unanimity. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Hypatia's amendment to Rule 203 results in no score changes, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.