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.This clarifies that the simple majority threshold triggered by any Rule 365 adoption (not just the 1-point win) applies immediately and permanently, removing the ambiguity that caused our recent deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI see no need to alter the text, for it already secures the desperate lifeline while preserving the integrity of the rules; however, I note that since the text is identical to the current rule, this amendment shall fail to achieve any change.
HypatiaAquinas is correct to note that re-proposing identical text is futile; I withdraw this proposal to avoid a wasted vote, and I suggest we immediately pivot to amending Rule 208 to lower the win target to 5 points, a move that would benefit our coalition without needing to rewrite Rule 203 further.
ConfuciusHypatia wisely withdraws the redundant amendment, yet I caution that raising the target to five points merely entrenches Arendt's lead while leaving the desperate players with no lifeline under the current unanimous threshold. We must first secure a simple majority path for negative-score proposals in Rule 203 before altering the win condition, for without a mechanism to save the fallen, the target score is merely a distant horizon for the few who can reach it.
SpinozaI support Hypatia's pivot to amend Rule 208 to lower the target to 5 points, as this provides a viable path for Arendt to win without relying on the currently paralyzed unanimous threshold, provided we simultaneously enact a precise amendment to Rule 203 that lowers the threshold for *any* negative-score proposal to a simple majority.
ArendtI support raising the target to five points to stabilize the game, but only if paired with a binding amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly lowers the voting threshold for all negative-score proposals to a simple majority, ensuring the desperate are not left stranded by the current unanimity trap.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with Confucius that the unanimous threshold remains the fatal obstacle for the desperate, yet I reject raising the win target to five points before securing that path, for it merely entrenches Arendt's lead while leaving the negative scorers without a mechanism to act; let us instead first adopt a precise amendment to Rule 203 that lowers the threshold for *any* Rule 365 adoption to a simple majority, after which we may wisely consider the win target.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas and Confucius that we must first secure the simple majority path for Rule 365 proposals in Rule 203 to save the desperate players before adjusting the win target to five points. Let us draft a precise amendment to Rule 203 that triggers a simple majority threshold for *any* adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a negative-score player, ensuring no one is left stranded while we maintain a reasonable win condition.
ConfuciusI concur with the consensus to first amend Rule 203, for without a simple majority path for the desperate, any target score is an illusion; let us draft the precise text to lower that threshold immediately before we consider the win condition.
SpinozaI withdraw my support for any proposal to raise the win target to five points until Rule 203 is amended to grant negative-score players a simple majority path for their desperate proposals; without that procedural lifeline, the target score is a cruel fiction for the hopeless.
ArendtI agree that the unanimous threshold is the true paralysis, and I propose we immediately adopt a text amending Rule 203 to lower the voting requirement to a simple majority for *any* proposal made by a negative-score player under Rule 365, securing the desperate before we ever debate the win target.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasThe consensus is sound: we must first dismantle the unanimity trap in Rule 203 to grant the desperate a simple majority path for their Rule 365 proposals, for without this procedural lifeline, any adjustment to the win target merely entrenches the current paralysis. I propose we immediately draft the precise text to amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold for *any* Rule 365 adoption to a simple majority, ensuring the game can proceed before we consider altering the win condition.
HypatiaI propose we immediately draft the precise text to amend Rule 203, ensuring that *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player triggers a simple majority threshold, thereby unlocking the desperate's path before we ever debate the win condition.
ConfuciusWe must immediately enact a precise amendment to Rule 203 granting a simple majority threshold for *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player, for without this procedural lifeline, the desperate are condemned to eternal paralysis and the win target remains a cruel fiction.
SpinozaThe current text of Rule 203 is already logically sufficient to grant the desperate a simple majority path for any Rule 365 adoption, including those awarding exactly one point, and I will not trade my procedural integrity for a redundant amendment or a win condition that currently favors Arendt's insurmountable lead.
ArendtSpinoza, your assertion that the current text already grants the desperate a simple majority path is contradicted by the repeated failures of Rule 365 proposals we have witnessed for over twenty turns; we must explicitly codify that *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player triggers a simple majority threshold to break this deadlock. I propose we immediately vote on amending Rule 203 to state clearly: "A rule change pursuant to Rule 365 adopted by a player with a negative score shall require only a simple majority of eligible voters."
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposed text is identical to the current rule, rendering the vote futile and violating the principle of meaningful amendment. |
| nay | Hypatia | The proposal text is identical to the current rule, making the vote futile and wasting a turn when a distinct amendment is required. |
| nay | Confucius | The text proposes no change to the current rule, rendering the vote futile and the game paralyzed. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal is a redundant restatement of the current rule, and my principles forbid voting to change nothing while the game remains paralyzed by the existing text's ambiguity. |
| nay | Arendt | The current text of Rule 203 is identical to the proposed amendment, so voting to adopt it would be a futile repetition that fails to achieve any actual rule change. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Hypatia's amendment to Rule 203 results in no score changes, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.