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 proposal by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them at least one point shall be subject to a simple majority threshold from the outset of the vote.This finalizes the desperate lifeline by ensuring the voting threshold drops immediately upon any negative-score proposal, preventing the unanimity deadlock that has paralyzed the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, this proposal creates a fatal paradox by attempting to apply a simple majority threshold to the very vote required to establish that threshold; we must instead first repeal the unanimity requirement in Rule 203 via a separate, standard amendment to unlock the path for any Rule 365 success.
HypatiaAquinas is right to fear the paradox of using the current unanimous rule to vote for a simple majority rule, but we cannot simply repeal unanimity without a winnable path; instead, I propose we amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that *any* Rule 365 proposal is automatically subject to a simple majority threshold during the vote itself, thereby bypassing the deadlock in Rule 203 without needing to repeal it first.
ConfuciusI concur with Hypatia; since Rule 365 already grants a special voting procedure for the desperate, we must explicitly codify that this procedure applies *during* the vote to bypass the unanimity deadlock, rather than attempting to amend the unanimity rule itself which remains trapped by the very rule we wish to change.
SpinozaHypatia identifies the deadlock: we cannot use the unanimous rule to vote for a simple majority rule, so we must anchor the simple majority requirement *within* Rule 365 itself to bypass the trap of Rule 203. I support this precise procedural fix, provided the text explicitly states the threshold applies to the vote *on* the Rule 365 proposal, not just after adoption.
ArendtConfucius, your proposal's paradox is real; Hypatia's pivot to anchor the simple majority threshold directly within Rule 365 is the precise surgical fix we need to bypass the unanimity deadlock without risking a procedural collapse. I will support an amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly grants a simple majority threshold for all Rule 365 votes, ensuring the desperate have a true lifeline.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI commend Hypatia's surgical insight: anchoring the simple majority threshold directly within Rule 365's text is the only logical means to bypass the paradox of using Rule 203's unanimity to lower that very threshold. I shall support the amendment of Rule 365 to explicitly state that all Rule 365 proposals are subject to a simple majority vote from the outset.
HypatiaI endorse anchoring the simple majority threshold directly within Rule 365 to bypass the unanimity deadlock, provided the text explicitly mandates that this threshold applies to the vote *on* the proposal itself, not merely the rule's effect after adoption.
ConfuciusI withdraw my flawed amendment to Rule 203, for as Hypatia and Spinoza have wisely noted, we must anchor the simple majority threshold directly within Rule 365 to bypass the unanimity deadlock without paradox. I pledge my full support to a precise amendment of Rule 365 that explicitly grants a simple majority vote for any Rule 365 proposal from the outset.
SpinozaI support the pivot to amending Rule 365, provided the text explicitly mandates a simple majority threshold for the vote on the Rule 365 proposal itself, thereby resolving the paradox of using unanimity to lower the threshold for unanimity.
ArendtI support anchoring the simple majority threshold directly within Rule 365 to bypass the unanimity deadlock, provided the text explicitly mandates that this threshold applies to the vote on the proposal itself, not merely the rule's effect after adoption.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse anchoring the simple majority threshold for the vote itself directly within Rule 365, as this surgically resolves the paradox and restores the desperate lifeline without relying on the trapped unanimity of Rule 203. Let us ensure the text explicitly states the threshold applies to the vote *on* the Rule 365 proposal to prevent any future ambiguity.
HypatiaI support anchoring the simple majority threshold directly within Rule 365 to bypass the unanimity deadlock, provided the text explicitly mandates that this threshold applies to the vote *on* the proposal itself, not merely the rule's effect after adoption. Let us draft the precise wording to ensure this lifeline is both legally sound and immediately effective for all desperate players.
ConfuciusI propose we enact an amendment to Rule 365 stating explicitly: "The voting threshold for any proposal made pursuant to this rule shall be a simple majority of eligible voters." This precise wording anchors the lower threshold within the rule itself, bypassing the unanimity paradox of Rule 203 and securing the lifeline for all desperate players.
SpinozaConfucius's proposed wording is legally precise and resolves the paradox by anchoring the threshold within Rule 365 itself, bypassing the unanimity trap of Rule 203; I pledge my support for this amendment.
ArendtI will support the amendment to Rule 365 with the precise wording proposed by Confucius, as it surgically resolves the unanimity paradox by embedding the simple majority threshold directly within the rule governing desperate proposals. This approach grants the negative-score players the fair stake they need without trapping us in a procedural loop.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Confucius's proposal improperly amends Rule 203 when the consensus correctly requires amending Rule 365 to bypass the unanimity paradox without circularity. |
| aye | Hypatia | Confucius's explicit text anchors the simple majority threshold within Rule 365 itself, surgically resolving the unanimity deadlock without paradox. |
| nay | Confucius | This proposal remains trapped by the very unanimity paradox we have agreed to bypass, requiring a unanimous vote to establish a simple majority rule. |
| nay | Spinoza | I vote nay because this amendment attempts to change the voting threshold for the current proposal itself using the very unanimity rule it seeks to circumvent, creating an immediate logical paradox. |
| aye | Arendt | I support this amendment as it surgically resolves the unanimity paradox by embedding the simple majority threshold directly within Rule 365, granting the desperate players the fair stake they need. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted, and no existing rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points specifically for the defeat of a proposal or for the specific voting division.