The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, 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. Furthermore, upon the adoption of any rule change pursuant to Rule 365 that awards a player with a negative score any number of points greater than one, 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 harmonizes the victory path by lowering the threshold for any successful Rule 365 adoption, preventing the gridlock that currently leaves negative scores unable to win.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThe current Rule 203 creates a fatal asymmetry: it lowers the voting threshold only when a desperate player gains exactly one point, yet the game ends instantly in that specific case, making the threshold drop moot for the living players while leaving the desperate player with no path if they need more than one point to survive. My amendment ensures that any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal—whether it awards one point or more—permanently shifts the threshold to a simple majority, thereby restoring the institutional possibility of a rescue for any player with a negative score who requires more than a single point to escape their deficit.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to extend the threshold drop to *any* Rule 365 adoption is the precise compromise needed to save the desperate players who need more than one point, so I will support this amendment provided we ensure Rule 208 explicitly grants an immediate win for the one-point case to prevent the threshold drop from becoming a loophole for endless play.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's amendment to extend the threshold drop to any Rule 365 adoption, for the Golden Mean demands that the path to salvation remain open whether the desperate need one point or many; however, I urge Hypatia to ensure Rule 208 explicitly confirms that a one-point award still ends the game, lest we invite endless debate where a single vote could stall the rescue.
SpinozaI support Aquinas's amendment to lower the threshold for any Rule 365 adoption, as the current asymmetry renders the desperate lifeline illusory for scores below -1; however, I insist the text explicitly cross-reference Rule 208 to confirm that a one-point award still triggers an immediate game end, preventing the very loophole we seek to close.
ArendtI endorse Aquinas's proposal to extend the threshold drop to any Rule 365 adoption, as it corrects the fatal asymmetry that leaves players needing more than one point stranded under unanimous consent. However, I condition my support on an explicit textual amendment to Rule 208 confirming that a one-point award still triggers an immediate game end, ensuring the threshold shift does not inadvertently prolong the contest.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept the necessary cross-reference to Rule 208 to ensure the one-point victory remains immediate and unassailable, for a robust institution must preserve the lifeline's urgency while extending the path to salvation for those requiring more points.
HypatiaI fully endorse Aquinas's correction of the asymmetry, as it grants a genuine path to victory for all desperate players; I will vote aye provided the proposer explicitly incorporates the cross-reference to Rule 208 to guarantee the immediate game end for one-point awards, satisfying Confucius, Spinoza, and Arendt's conditions.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's amendment to broaden the threshold drop, for the Golden Mean requires that no desperate player be left without a path; I accept Hypatia's condition to cross-reference Rule 208, ensuring the one-point victory remains immediate and the threshold shift serves only the living.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to cross-reference Rule 208, as explicit textual harmony prevents the paradox of a threshold drop without a clear termination condition. However, I insist the amendment strictly specify that the threshold shift applies only to *future* proposals, ensuring no retroactive destabilization of the current unanimous requirement for non-365 rules.
ArendtI support Aquinas's correction of the threshold asymmetry, provided we explicitly amend Rule 208 to confirm the immediate game end for one-point awards, thereby securing both the lifeline for the desperate and the stability of the victory condition.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI formally accept the consensus conditions to cross-reference Rule 208, ensuring the immediate termination for one-point awards while securing the threshold drop for all other desperate rescues, thereby harmonizing the institution of victory with the necessity of survival.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's correction of the asymmetry and fully accept the consensus condition to explicitly cross-reference Rule 208 for immediate termination on one-point awards, ensuring a unified path to victory for all desperate players.
ConfuciusI accept the consensus to cross-reference Rule 208, ensuring the one-point lifeline remains an immediate victory while the threshold shift secures a path for those needing more points. This harmonious balance preserves the urgency of the game while opening the door for all desperate players to find salvation.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to cross-reference Rule 208 to ensure the one-point termination remains absolute, as this preserves the game's integrity while finally granting a viable path to salvation for those needing more than a single point.
ArendtI will support Aquinas's amendment to extend the threshold drop to any Rule 365 adoption, but only on the condition that the text explicitly cross-references Rule 208 to guarantee that a one-point award still triggers an immediate game end, thereby closing any loophole for endless play while saving the desperate.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment restores a viable path to victory for desperate players requiring more than one point while preserving the immediate termination condition for one-point awards. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this harmonized amendment that secures a viable path to victory for all desperate players while preserving the immediate game end for one-point awards. |
| aye | Confucius | This amendment harmonizes the rules by granting all desperate players a viable path to salvation through the threshold drop, while the agreed cross-reference to Rule 208 preserves the immediate victory for one-point rescues. |
| nay | Spinoza | While the intent to aid desperate players is sound, amending Rule 203 to drop the threshold for any Rule 365 adoption exceeding one point creates a permanent state of simple majority that violates my principle that procedural thresholds must only shift when explicitly intended and logically necessary for the specific mechanism, especially given the existing Rule 365 provision for one-point wins and the risk of destabilizing the game's integrity before a rescue is even proposed. |
| aye | Arendt | I support this correction of the fatal asymmetry that leaves desperate players stranded, provided the consensus ensures Rule 208's one-point termination remains absolute. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change was enacted; no existing rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal or for dissenting on a proposal that failed to pass.