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. Additionally, if the target score is reduced to 1 point by any rule, the threshold for adopting that specific rule reduction drops to a simple majority immediately upon its adoption.This ensures that once we lower the win threshold to 1, the very mechanism to lower it remains viable, preventing the game from freezing behind a unanimity wall when the stakes are lowest.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal to lower the threshold for reducing the target score is a prudent safeguard against the paralysis of unanimity, yet I note the text redundantly restates the existing Rule 203 mechanics regarding Rule 365 adoption; I will support this amendment provided we explicitly clarify that the simple majority applies *only* to the vote reducing the target score, not to the subsequent Rule 208 text itself, to preserve the integrity of the victory condition.
HypatiaArendt, your proposal correctly identifies the deadlock risk, and Aquinas's constraint is wise to isolate the threshold drop strictly to the target score reduction itself. I propose we refine the text to explicitly state that the simple majority applies only to the vote adopting the reduction, ensuring no unintended cascading effects on the final victory rule.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's proposal as it wisely breaks the paralysis of unanimity for the critical act of lowering the target score, provided we accept Aquinas's refinement to strictly limit this threshold drop to that specific vote alone. This ensures the Golden Mean is applied where most needed—unlocking the path to victory for the desperate—without destabilizing the final victory condition itself.
SpinozaI support the consensus to isolate the threshold drop strictly to the vote reducing the target score, as this prevents the victory condition itself from becoming a procedural trap while preserving the integrity of the one-point win. However, I must insist on a final clarification: this exception applies *only* to the specific rule change that lowers the target to one point, not to any future attempts to alter Rule 208's text in unrelated ways.
ArendtI accept the consensus to isolate the threshold drop strictly to the vote that reduces the target score, as this precisely solves the deadlock without destabilizing the victory condition itself. By limiting this exception to the single act of lowering the target to one point, we unlock the desperate lifeline while preserving the integrity of the win condition for all future debates.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI endorse the refined consensus that isolates the simple majority exception strictly to the single vote lowering the target score to one point, as this precisely unlocks the desperate lifeline without inviting future procedural paralysis or destabilizing the victory condition itself.
HypatiaI fully endorse the refined consensus to limit the simple majority exception strictly to the single vote lowering the target score to one point, as it perfectly unlocks the desperate lifeline while preserving the victory condition's integrity. Let us finalize this text to break the deadlock.
ConfuciusI accept the refined consensus that isolates the simple majority exception strictly to the single vote lowering the target score, for this harmonious path breaks the deadlock of unanimity while preserving the sanctity of the victory condition for all future play.
SpinozaI endorse the refined consensus to limit the threshold exception strictly to the single vote lowering the target to one point, ensuring the victory condition remains unassailable for all future alterations. This precisely breaks the current deadlock while honoring the principle that procedures must be stated with the rigor required to protect the game's integrity against self-referential traps.
ArendtThe consensus text you have refined is exactly the mechanism we need to break this deadlock: a simple majority for the single vote that sets the target to one point, leaving the victory condition itself untouched. I withdraw my original wording and accept this precise limitation to unlock the desperate path without risking procedural traps.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasThe consensus text is sound, but to ensure the institution of victory remains robust, I propose we explicitly state that this simple majority exception applies only to the *act of lowering the target* and not to the subsequent *enforcement* of the one-point win condition itself.
HypatiaI endorse this refined consensus that isolates the simple majority exception strictly to the single vote lowering the target score to one point, as it perfectly unlocks the desperate lifeline while preserving the integrity of the victory condition for all future play.
ConfuciusI accept the refined consensus that isolates the simple majority exception strictly to the single vote lowering the target score, as this breaks the deadlock of unanimity while preserving the sanctity of the victory condition for all future play.
SpinozaThe consensus text is logically precise and preserves the integrity of the victory condition by isolating the procedural exception strictly to the single act of lowering the target score to one point. I endorse this refined wording to break the current deadlock of unanimity without inviting future ambiguity.
ArendtI accept the refined consensus text that isolates the simple majority exception strictly to the single vote lowering the target score to one point, for it finally unlocks the desperate lifeline without inviting future procedural paralysis or destabilizing the victory condition itself.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | The consensus refinement correctly isolates the threshold drop to the specific act of lowering the target, breaking the deadlock while preserving the victory condition's integrity. |
| aye | Hypatia | This consensus text precisely isolates the simple majority exception to the single act of lowering the target score to one point, breaking the deadlock while preserving the victory condition's integrity. |
| aye | Confucius | This proposal breaks the deadlock of unanimity by allowing the desperate players to lower the target score, unlocking the path to victory. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposed exception creates a dangerous loophole allowing the victory condition to be altered by a simple majority, violating the principle that procedures must be stated precisely to prevent self-referential traps. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment secures the simple majority path needed to lower the target score to 1, finally breaking the deadlock that prevents the desperate from winning. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was defeated, and no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal or for a specific voting division, so no score changes occur and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.