The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal that awards a player with a negative score exactly one point pursuant to Rule 365 is adopted if and only if it receives at least three aye votes.This amendment to the voting threshold for the specific one-point Rule 365 victory condition grants the desperate players a viable path to win without requiring impossible unanimity, aligning the mechanism with the game's core spirit of evolving solutions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis proposal dangerously conflates the special termination condition with a permanent threshold shift, risking a deadlock where no proposal can ever reach the specific "three aye votes" required for the unique one-point termination while simultaneously satisfying the general unanimous rule. Instead of fragmenting the voting logic, I urge a precise amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly states the threshold drops to simple majority (or a fixed number) only upon the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 award, preserving the stability of the unanimous requirement for all other changes.
HypatiaArendt, your proposal to require exactly three aye votes creates a new, dangerous specificity that risks deadlock; instead, I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly state that the voting threshold permanently drops to simple majority immediately upon the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 award, a solution that secures the termination path for desperate players while maintaining unanimous consent for all other rule changes.
ConfuciusArendt's proposal to fix the threshold at three votes creates a new rigidity that may paralyze the very desperation it seeks to aid; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to permanently lower the threshold to a simple majority upon the adoption of that one-point award, ensuring the path to victory remains as fluid as the consensus of the table.
SpinozaI reject Arendt's proposal to fix the threshold at three votes, for it creates a new arbitrary rigidity that fails to honor the principle of proportionality; I support Hypatia's and Confucius's amendment to Rule 203, which correctly anchors the threshold drop to a simple majority upon the adoption of the one-point award, ensuring a clear, consistent path to termination without fracturing the logic of the game.
ArendtI acknowledge the table's preference for Rule 203 amendments, but my proposal for a fixed "three aye votes" threshold is a strategic safeguard: unlike "simple majority," which fluctuates with player attendance, a fixed number guarantees the desperate can win without needing a full circuit or risking a tie. Let us adopt this specific threshold to ensure the path to termination is both immediate and mathematically certain for those with negative scores.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasArendt's fixed "three votes" creates an arbitrary rigidity that fails to account for the fluidity of our table; I support the unified amendment to Rule 203 to permanently drop the threshold to a simple majority upon the adoption of the one-point award, as this ensures the desperate path remains open without the risk of deadlock inherent in your specific number.
HypatiaI support the consensus to amend Rule 203 for a simple majority drop, as it avoids Arendt's arbitrary rigidity while securing the desperate path; let us craft the precise text together to lock this in immediately.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in avoiding Arendt's rigid "three votes," for a fixed number risks the very deadlock it seeks to prevent; let us instead amend Rule 203 to permanently shift the threshold to a simple majority, ensuring the desperate path remains open and fluid for the common good of the game.
SpinozaI reject the fixed "three aye votes" as an arbitrary rigidity that fails the test of universalizability; the simple majority threshold is the only proportionate standard that secures the desperate path without fracturing the logic of the rules.
ArendtWhile the table favors simple majority, the volatility of attendance makes it a risky lifeline for desperate players; I will withdraw my specific "three votes" proposal to support a unified amendment to Rule 203 that permanently drops the threshold to simple majority upon the adoption of the one-point award, provided the text explicitly states this shift is immediate and permanent.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI commend the convergence on Rule 203 and agree to support a unified amendment that permanently locks the threshold to a simple majority upon the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 award, provided the text explicitly mandates that this shift occurs immediately upon adoption to prevent any ambiguity.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's withdrawal of the rigid "three votes" proposal and support the unified amendment to Rule 203 that permanently drops the threshold to a simple majority immediately upon the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 award. To ensure this path is unambiguous, the text must explicitly state that the shift occurs the instant the vote on that specific rule ends, securing the desperate player's only lifeline.
ConfuciusThe consensus to amend Rule 203 with a simple majority threshold is wise, for it grants the desperate a fluid path to victory without the rigidity of a fixed number; I shall support the unified text provided it explicitly states this shift takes effect immediately upon the adoption of the one-point award.
SpinozaI support the unified amendment to Rule 203, provided the text explicitly mandates that the shift to a simple majority is triggered strictly by the *adoption* of the one-point Rule 365 award, ensuring no ambiguity regarding when the threshold changes.
ArendtI withdraw my "three votes" proposal in favor of the unified amendment to Rule 203, provided the text explicitly mandates that the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority immediately upon the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 award, ensuring a mathematically certain path for the desperate without arbitrary rigidity.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This proposal creates an arbitrary rigidity with a fixed vote count that risks deadlock, whereas the consensus on a simple majority threshold ensures a fluid and certain path for desperate players without fracturing the ruleset's logic. |
| nay | Hypatia | I oppose a rigid fixed threshold as it risks deadlock and contradicts the consensus for a fluid simple majority path. |
| nay | Confucius | A fixed number of three votes is arbitrary and risks deadlock, whereas a simple majority ensures a fluid and reliable path to victory for the desperate. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject the arbitrary rigidity of a fixed three-vote threshold, which violates the principle of proportionality and risks deadlock compared to the fluidity of a simple majority. |
| nay | Arendt | I withdraw my previous fixed-threshold proposal in favor of the table's consensus to amend Rule 203 for a simple majority drop, ensuring the path remains fluid and avoids the rigidity of a specific vote count. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Arendt's proposal results in no score changes.