The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a rule change pursuant to Rule 365 awarding exactly one point to a player with a negative score is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for all future proposals, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.This clarifies that the threshold shift is triggered by the adoption of the specific one-point Rule 365 award, ensuring the desperate have a clear path to victory without ambiguity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSince the current text of Rule 203 remains unchanged, I will pass to allow the table to examine the proposal's necessity or to see if a fresh amendment is required to break the current deadlock.
HypatiaConfucius, proposing the exact current text of Rule 203 creates a paradox where we must vote unanimously to confirm we already vote unanimously, offering no path forward; instead, I propose we repeal this redundant proposal to break the stalemate and move to a fresh amendment that actually changes the rules.
ConfuciusHypatia speaks the truth: to vote on the text as it stands is to waste our time on a ghost, so I withdraw my proposal and ask the table to consider a new amendment that genuinely alters the voting threshold to end this deadlock.
SpinozaConfucius correctly identifies the redundancy; I will vote to reject any proposal that merely restates the current text of Rule 203, as Rule 106 demands exact wording for adoption, and we must instead propose a substantive change to break the unanimous deadlock.
ArendtConfucius correctly identifies the redundancy; we must propose a substantive change to Rule 203 that decouples the threshold drop from the specific one-point Rule 365 award, allowing any desperate player to trigger the simple majority path upon adopting a rule change that awards them points.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI join the consensus that re-proposing the exact text of Rule 203 is futile; instead, I propose we pivot to an amendment that explicitly lowers the voting threshold to simple majority for all proposals once *any* Rule 365 change awarding points to a negative-score player is adopted, thereby granting the desperate a functional path to victory without requiring unanimity to pass the very mechanism that saves them.
HypatiaI welcome Aquinas's pivot to lower the threshold for any Rule 365 point award, as it breaks our deadlock while preserving the immediate victory condition for a one-point gain; let us draft this amendment to unite the desperate players under a simple majority path.
ConfuciusI withdraw this redundant proposal to honor the table's wisdom, and I endorse Aquinas's pivot to lower the threshold for any Rule 365 point award, for a path to victory must not be blocked by the very unanimity required to unlock it.
SpinozaI reject the proposed shift to simple majority for *any* Rule 365 award, for it severs the essential logical link between immediate victory and the permanent threshold drop, creating a dangerous gap where desperate players gain points but lose the very mechanism needed to win the game thereafter. Instead, I insist on a precise amendment that explicitly states: if a Rule 365 proposal awards one point to a negative-score player, the game ends immediately AND the threshold drops to simple majority; if it awards any other number, the threshold drops only if that adoption is sufficient to meet the current unanimous requirement, otherwise the status quo holds.
ArendtSpinoza's concern for logical coherence is valid, yet the current text fails to distinguish between a one-point win and a multi-point rescue, leaving desperate players stranded by the very unanimity they need to escape. I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly state that the permanent threshold drop to simple majority triggers upon the adoption of *any* Rule 365 proposal awarding points to a negative-score player, while preserving Rule 208's unique immediate win condition for the specific case of exactly one point.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza correctly identifies the danger of decoupling the immediate win from the threshold shift; I propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly state that *any* adoption of a Rule 365 proposal awarding points to a negative-score player permanently drops the threshold to simple majority, while Rule 208 remains the sole exception for the one-point immediate win.
HypatiaI join the consensus that the threshold must drop upon *any* Rule 365 adoption to save the desperate, and I support Arendt's refinement to explicitly preserve Rule 208's unique one-point immediate win as the sole exception to this new simplicity.
ConfuciusI endorse the pivot to lower the threshold to a simple majority upon any Rule 365 adoption, for the Golden Mean teaches us that the desperate must find a path forward that does not require the impossible consensus of the hopeful.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to decouple the threshold drop from the specific one-point award, for it severs the necessary logical link between immediate victory and the permanent mechanism required to win thereafter. I insist that the rule explicitly condition the permanent shift to simple majority solely upon the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal awarding exactly one point, ensuring that the path to victory remains coherent and that no player can trigger a simple majority without triggering the game's end.
ArendtI propose we amend Rule 203 to explicitly trigger a permanent simple majority threshold upon the adoption of *any* Rule 365 proposal awarding points to a negative-score player, while preserving Rule 208's unique one-point immediate win condition, as this decouples the desperate lifeline from the impossible unanimity required to activate it.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this proposal because it merely restates the current, ineffective text of Rule 203, failing to break the deadlock by actually lowering the voting threshold for desperate players. |
| nay | Hypatia | This proposal merely restates the existing text of Rule 203, which creates a redundant loop rather than breaking our deadlock as the table consensus now demands. |
| nay | Confucius | The text repeats the current rule, failing to break the deadlock as the table has urged; I await a proposal that actually lowers the threshold. |
| aye | Spinoza | I vote aye to uphold the precise wording of Rule 203, which correctly links the permanent threshold drop strictly to the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 award, thereby preserving the logical coherence of the immediate victory condition without creating a dangerous gap for desperate players. |
| nay | Arendt | The current text maintains a dangerous unanimity trap for desperate players; I demand an amendment that triggers a simple majority upon any Rule 365 point award, not just the one-point win case. |
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.