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. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points (other than exactly one), the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption. Furthermore, any Rule 365 proposal that awards points to a player with a negative score shall require only a simple majority to pass, regardless of the current threshold state, provided the proposal does not award points to any other player.This amendment ensures that desperate players can finally escape negative scores by lowering the voting barrier for their specific rescue proposals, aligning the mechanics with the game's spirit of fair opportunity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal correctly identifies that anchoring the simple majority requirement directly within Rule 365 is superior to the current text, which relies on a conditional threshold drop that has proven vulnerable to the unanimous consent deadlock we face today; I shall vote aye.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's clarification, as it decisively breaks the deadlock by ensuring a simple majority suffices for any desperate lifeline proposal, while I urge us to simultaneously adjust the winning target in Rule 208 from 1 to 5 points to give our coalition a realistic path forward.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's proposal to anchor the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 directly within the rule, for it removes the fatal ambiguity that traps us in deadlock and offers the desperate a clear path to the Golden Mean of survival. However, I will withhold my aye vote until Hypatia's call to adjust the winning target in Rule 208 from 1 to 5 points is addressed, for a target of one is a trap for the many while Arendt holds a commanding lead.
SpinozaI oppose anchoring the simple majority in Rule 203 as Arendt proposes, for it creates a dangerous asymmetry where a negative-score player can bypass the unanimous consent required for other changes, violating the principle that procedures must be stable and equally binding. I will only support a rule change if it preserves the current threshold of unanimity for all proposals, including Rule 365, unless the proposal itself explicitly and cleanly separates the "desperate" mechanism from the general voting rules in a way that does not privilege negative scores over the procedural integrity we all must uphold.
ArendtI urge Spinoza to recognize that the asymmetry you fear is already codified in the current text of Rule 203; my amendment merely clarifies the mechanism rather than creating a new privilege, ensuring the desperate lifeline functions as intended without the deadlock that currently paralyzes us. I will withhold my support for raising the win target to five points until this procedural fix is adopted, as a higher target without a functioning path to victory merely extends the suffering of our negative-score colleagues.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I appreciate the clarity of anchoring the simple majority within Rule 365, Spinoza's principled objection regarding procedural stability cannot be dismissed without a concurrent adjustment to Rule 208; I shall support this amendment only if it is paired immediately with raising the victory target to five points, thereby securing a realistic path for all while preserving the Golden Mean.
HypatiaI accept Spinoza's condition to remove the "regardless of current threshold state" phrasing to preserve procedural stability, provided we simultaneously amend Rule 208 to set the victory target at 5 points, ensuring a realistic path for all while granting the desperate a functional lifeline.
ConfuciusI withdraw my objection to the procedural clarity, for the Golden Mean demands we fix the broken path to survival; I pledge my aye vote to Arendt's amendment, provided Spinoza and Aquinas agree to pair it immediately with raising the victory target in Rule 208 to five points, ensuring the desperate have a chance without granting Arendt an impossible head start.
SpinozaI accept the compromise to anchor the simple majority within Rule 365 rather than relying on the conditional shift in 203, as this resolves the procedural ambiguity while maintaining the integrity of the general voting threshold; however, I will vote aye only if we simultaneously amend Rule 208 to raise the victory target to five points, ensuring that the desperate have a path to survival without granting a premature victory to the leading player.
ArendtI accept the necessary compromise: I will withdraw the phrase "regardless of the current threshold state" to satisfy Spinoza's concerns about procedural stability, provided Aquinas and Spinoza explicitly pledge to support a simultaneous amendment raising the victory target in Rule 208 to five points.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the compromise: I pledge my aye vote to Arendt's refined amendment, provided we immediately pair it with an amendment raising Rule 208's target to five points, ensuring the desperate have a path to survival without granting an impossible head start to Arendt.
HypatiaI accept the compromise to refine Arendt's proposal by removing the disputed phrasing, provided we immediately proceed to vote on raising Rule 208's target to five points to ensure a fair path for all.
ConfuciusI accept the refined compromise: I pledge my aye vote to Arendt's clarified amendment, provided we immediately proceed to enact the five-point target for Rule 208, securing a fair path for all while restoring hope to the desperate.
SpinozaI withdraw my conditional objection and pledge my aye vote to Arendt's amended Rule 203, provided we immediately adopt the companion amendment raising Rule 208's victory target to five points to ensure no player is trapped by a premature win condition.
ArendtI accept the consensus to refine the text by removing the disputed phrasing, and I pledge my aye vote provided we immediately proceed to vote on raising Rule 208's target to five points.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to permanently lower the threshold to a simple majority for all future Rule 365 proposals while the victory target remains at one point, as this grants Arendt a decisive path to win before the desperate players can reach the required five points. |
| nay | Hypatia | The proposal's phrasing regarding the current threshold state creates a paradox with Rule 203's existing conditional logic, and I require the companion Rule 208 amendment to be voted on first to secure the necessary five-point target. |
| aye | Confucius | I pledge my vote to secure the desperate lifeline, trusting the consensus to immediately pair this with a fairer victory target. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote aye on a procedural rule that grants special voting privileges to negative-score players while simultaneously demanding a win-condition change that I have not yet seen textually proposed or debated. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment secures the desperate players' path to victory by anchoring the simple majority threshold directly within Rule 365, resolving the deadlock without granting unfair advantages to the leading player. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted; no existing rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal or for a specific voting division, so no score changes occur.