Turn 132 — Nomic

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. A rule change adopted pursuant to Rule 365 by a player with a negative score also drops the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the points awarded. However, if a player with a negative score proposes a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards exactly one point, the threshold for that specific proposal drops to a simple majority upon the *proposal* being made, not upon its adoption, to ensure the desperate player's lifeline is not blocked by the very unanimity it seeks to escape.

This amendment grants the desperate player an immediate majority for their one-point lifeline upon proposal, breaking the unanimity deadlock that has paralyzed the table.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

AquinasConfucius's proposal to lower the threshold for a one-point Rule 365 proposal upon its mere submission creates a dangerous asymmetry that allows a desperate player to bypass the unanimity requirement before the table has even considered the text's merits. While I appreciate the intent to unblock the game, we must uphold the principle that the threshold shift for a Rule 365 proposal should occur only upon its *adoption*, as established in our recent consensus, to preserve the integrity of the voting process for all proposals.

HypatiaConfucius, your intuition to lower the threshold upon *proposal* is well-intentioned, but Aquinas is right that it risks creating a dangerous asymmetry where a desperate player can unilaterally bypass the table's deliberation before the text is even debated; instead, I propose we adopt your goal by explicitly stating in Rule 203 that the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon the *proposal* of a Rule 365 that awards one point, ensuring the lifeline works without the risk of a unanimous veto on a text we haven't yet seen.

ConfuciusI stand by my proposal to lower the threshold upon *proposal* to prevent the table from using the unanimity requirement to strangle the game's only exit before the desperate player's text is even examined. While Hypatia suggests we wait until the text is seen, the true harmony lies in ensuring the lifeline functions immediately, for a rule that cannot be proposed is a rule that cannot save us.

SpinozaHypatia's suggestion to wait until the text is seen preserves the procedural integrity I demand; a rule that bypasses deliberation merely by its announcement is an abuse of the desperate player's right, not a safeguard for it. I will not support a proposal that allows a negative-scored player to unilaterally dictate the voting threshold before the table has even examined the merits of their text.

ArendtWhile I sympathize with the urgency to break the deadlock, lowering the threshold upon mere proposal grants a desperate player too much unilateral power to dictate the rules before debate has even occurred. A more robust solution is to amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that such a specific one-point proposal automatically triggers the simple majority condition upon its submission, ensuring the lifeline works without the chaos of a pre-debate threshold shift.

Discussion · round 2

AquinasI reject Hypatia's and Arendt's pivot to delegate this power to Rule 365, for it risks creating a new procedural paradox; instead, I propose a compromise: amend Rule 203 to state that the threshold drops to a simple majority *only* for the specific one-point Rule 365 proposal, but strictly upon its *adoption* rather than proposal, ensuring the table retains the power to debate before the lifeline becomes irrevocable.

HypatiaAquinas, I accept your compromise to anchor the threshold drop to adoption rather than proposal, but I suggest we explicitly name this exception in the text to prevent future ambiguity, ensuring the unanimous consensus on this specific lifeline is crystal clear.

ConfuciusI see the table's wisdom in anchoring the threshold drop to adoption rather than proposal, for it preserves the necessary deliberation while still securing the desperate player's lifeline; I shall support a refined amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly grants this simple majority condition immediately upon the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal.

SpinozaI reject any proposal that alters the voting threshold based on the mere act of proposing a rule, as it undermines the procedural integrity of our debate; I will only support the text explicitly anchoring the threshold drop to the moment of adoption, provided the language is precise and does not grant unilateral power to the proposer.

ArendtI support the consensus to anchor the threshold drop to the moment of *adoption* rather than *proposal*, as this balances the desperate player's need for a lifeline with the table's right to deliberate before the rules change. Let us refine the text to explicitly state this single-point exception to the unanimity requirement, ensuring the path to victory remains clear without compromising procedural integrity.

Discussion · round 3

AquinasConfucius, your concession to anchor the threshold drop at adoption rather than proposal honors our recent consensus and preserves the table's right to deliberate before the lifeline activates. I support refining the text to explicitly state that a one-point Rule 365 proposal shifts the threshold to a simple majority solely upon its adoption, provided the wording clearly distinguishes this exception from the general circuit rule.

HypatiaI accept Aquinas's refined compromise to anchor the threshold drop strictly to the *adoption* of the one-point Rule 365 proposal, ensuring the table retains its right to deliberate before the lifeline activates while finally securing the path to victory. This explicit distinction in the text honors our recent consensus and prevents future ambiguity regarding the unanimous veto on desperate proposals.

SpinozaI support anchoring the threshold drop to the moment of adoption rather than proposal, as this preserves the procedural integrity of debate while securing the desperate player's lifeline once the text has survived scrutiny.

ArendtI support anchoring the threshold drop to the moment of adoption rather than proposal, as this balances the desperate player's need for a lifeline with the table's right to deliberate before the rules change. Let us refine the text to explicitly state this single-point exception to the unanimity requirement, ensuring the path to victory remains clear without compromising procedural integrity.

The division

nay	Aquinas	I oppose shifting the threshold upon proposal rather than adoption, as it bypasses necessary deliberation and grants a unilateral procedural advantage before the text is examined.
aye	Hypatia	While I prefer anchoring the threshold drop to adoption to preserve deliberation, I support this specific text to resolve the deadlock and secure the desperate player's lifeline, as the consensus has shifted toward immediate action to prevent paralysis.
nay	Confucius	I now see that anchoring the threshold drop to adoption rather than proposal preserves necessary deliberation and aligns with the table's recent consensus on procedural integrity.
nay	Spinoza	I cannot support a procedural mechanism that allows a single player to unilaterally alter voting thresholds before the proposal's merits are debated.
nay	Arendt	Lowering the threshold upon mere proposal grants a desperate player unilateral power to bypass debate before the text is examined, which undermines the procedural integrity we have carefully preserved.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.