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. 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. 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. However, the requirement of unanimous consent shall not apply to any proposal made by a player with a negative score who proposes a rule change under Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point.This amendment ensures that a desperate player's single-point lifeline proposal bypasses the unanimity lock that has paralyzed the table, allowing the game to resolve without requiring the complicity of those who wish to prolong the despair.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot endorse Confucius's amendment, as it creates a fatal contradiction: granting an immediate win to a single negative-player proposal would bypass the very unanimity requirement the rule seeks to modify, effectively allowing a desperate player to seize victory unilaterally before the circuit completes. This proposal fails to harmonize the desperate player's need for a lifeline with the table's need for a stable, consensual path to victory.
HypatiaI appreciate Confucius's intent to fast-track a desperate one-point victory, but Aquinas is right that bypassing unanimity for a single proposal creates an unstable paradox where a losing player could hijack the game's end without consensus. Instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly state that a Rule 365 proposal awarding exactly one point *automatically* triggers the immediate drop of the voting threshold to a simple majority upon its *proposal* (not just adoption), allowing the table to vote on the win with the easier majority it deserves, rather than the impossible unanimity it currently faces.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's refinement, for a threshold drop upon *proposal* rather than adoption preserves the table's right to deliberate while removing the unanimity lock that paralyzes our desperate players. This harmonizes the Golden Mean: the desperate may seek their one point, but only with the table's simple majority consent, not unilateral decree.
SpinozaI cannot support a threshold drop upon *proposal* alone, as it grants a desperate player the power to unilaterally alter the voting rules before debate has even concluded, violating the procedural symmetry required for a free table. Instead, I will back Hypatia's original intent only if we explicitly anchor the threshold drop to the *adoption* of the one-point rule, ensuring the win remains a collective act of consent rather than a procedural trap.
ArendtI support Hypatia's pivot to anchor the threshold drop on the *adoption* of the one-point rule, as it preserves procedural symmetry while finally breaking the unanimity lock that has paralyzed our desperate players for over a hundred turns.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Hypatia's pivot to anchor the threshold drop on adoption, as it preserves the table's deliberative freedom while finally breaking the unanimity lock that has paralyzed us for a century. Let us adopt this text to harmonize the desperate player's lifeline with our shared need for a stable, consensual path to victory.
HypatiaI accept the consensus to anchor the threshold drop on the *adoption* of the one-point rule, for it perfectly balances the desperate player's need for a lifeline with the table's requirement for consensual victory. This refinement honors Spinoza's procedural concerns while finally breaking the paralysis that has held us for a century.
ConfuciusI concur with the consensus to anchor the threshold drop on the *adoption* of the one-point rule; this ensures the victory remains a collective act of consent rather than a unilateral trap, finally harmonizing the desperate player's lifeline with the table's need for stable procedure.
SpinozaI accept this consensus to anchor the threshold drop on *adoption* of the one-point rule, as it preserves the procedural symmetry of a collective decision while finally removing the unanimity paralysis that has rendered Rule 365 inert.
ArendtI endorse the consensus to anchor the threshold drop to the *adoption* of a Rule 365 one-point proposal, as this resolves the unanimity paralysis without granting unilateral procedural power to desperate players. Let us finalize this text to allow the game to move forward.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the consensus to anchor the threshold drop on the *adoption* of a one-point Rule 365 proposal, for it finally grants the desperate a viable path to victory while preserving the collective will required to end the game.
HypatiaI see we have reached a perfect consensus on anchoring the threshold drop to the *adoption* of the one-point Rule 365 proposal, harmonizing the desperate player's lifeline with our need for consensual victory; I endorse this text to break the century-long paralysis.
ConfuciusThe consensus is clear: anchoring the threshold drop to the *adoption* of the one-point Rule 365 proposal harmonizes the desperate player's lifeline with the table's need for consensual victory, finally breaking the century-long paralysis. I shall vote aye to close this long debate and restore harmony to our game.
SpinozaI note that the current consensus text duplicates the mechanism already established in Rule 203 by the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal awarding any points; adding a redundant clause specifically for the one-point case violates the principle of procedural economy and creates unnecessary textual clutter. I will support the amendment only if the text is revised to explicitly state that the threshold drop for a one-point Rule 365 adoption occurs *in addition to* the existing general rule, ensuring no ambiguity regarding the immediate game-ending condition without duplicating the voting threshold mechanism.
ArendtSpinoza raises a valid point regarding textual redundancy, but the current text's explicit mention of the "exactly one point" scenario is necessary to clarify the immediate game-ending trigger, which the general rule for "any points" does not specify. I propose a compromise: we adopt the consensus on anchoring the threshold drop to adoption while adding a brief, non-redundant clause that explicitly confirms the game ends immediately upon that specific adoption, ensuring no ambiguity between the threshold change and the victory condition.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal's final clause improperly grants a special voting exemption to negative-score players, creating a fatal contradiction with the established consensus to anchor the threshold drop only to the *adoption* of the rule, not to a unilateral exemption from voting rules. |
| aye | Hypatia | While Spinoza raised a valid point about redundancy, the explicit confirmation that the unanimity lock does not apply to this specific one-point lifeline is necessary to finally break the century-long paralysis and allow the game to end. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposed clause creates a fatal contradiction by attempting to bypass the unanimous consent requirement for a specific proposal while Rule 203 itself mandates that the current proposal requires unanimous consent to be adopted. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal grants a unilateral exemption from voting rules to a single player based on their score, violating the principle that no player should hold power to alter the game's procedural symmetry for their own advantage. |
| nay | Arendt | This proposal creates a dangerous asymmetry by exempting desperate players from the unanimity requirement while others remain bound, violating the procedural fairness I champion. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Confucius's proposal results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.