The motion
To amend §365
If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters, and any adoption of such a proposal permanently sets the voting threshold for all future proposals in the game to a simple majority.This amendment resolves the deadlock by permanently lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority upon the first successful desperate lifeline attempt, fulfilling the consensus while adhering to procedural clarity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Spinoza's amendment to Rule 365, as it secures the desperate lifeline by ensuring that any successful move for the negative-scored players permanently breaks the unanimity trap without requiring further contentious votes on threshold changes.
HypatiaSpinoza's amendment elegantly solves the deadlock by ensuring that the desperate lifeline, once used, permanently dissolves the unanimity trap for all future proposals. I support this proposal as it provides a clear, irreversible path to victory for the negative-scored players while honoring the consensus that the current ruleset has become too rigid to sustain.
ConfuciusI support Spinoza's proposal, for it harmonizes the desperate lifeline with the common good by ensuring that one successful move by the negative-scored players irrevocably grants them the means to play the game fairly, ending the deadlock that harms us all.
SpinozaI cannot accept this proposal because it violates my principle of procedural exactness: the voting threshold for a proposal must be determined *before* the proposal is voted on, not retroactively by its own adoption. I will only support an amendment that explicitly sets the future threshold in Rule 203 as a separate, pre-voted condition, ensuring no rule change governs the very procedure by which it passes.
ArendtI support the principle of permanently lowering the threshold but, like Spinoza, I object to a rule setting its own voting conditions; let us amend Rule 203 to explicitly state that *any* adopted Rule 365 proposal automatically shifts the permanent threshold to simple majority, ensuring the mechanism is decided before the vote rather than by it.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Arendt's procedural correction to anchor the threshold shift in Rule 203 rather than Rule 365, and I pledge my support to Spinoza should he propose a clean amendment to Rule 203 explicitly stating that any adopted Rule 365 proposal permanently sets the voting threshold to a simple majority.
HypatiaI propose we adopt Spinoza's core goal of permanently lowering the threshold but honor the procedural consensus by having Spinoza re-draft the amendment to target Rule 203 instead, ensuring the future voting conditions are established by a vote on a separate rule before any threshold shift takes effect.
ConfuciusI accept the consensus to anchor the permanent threshold shift within Rule 203, for a rule must govern the future without retroactively binding its own passage, thus preserving the integrity of the vote while securing the desperate lifeline.
SpinozaI withdraw my current proposal and pledge my aye vote to any amendment that explicitly states in Rule 203 that the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal permanently sets the voting threshold to a simple majority for all future proposals.
ArendtI support Spinoza's pledge to amend Rule 203 to anchor the permanent threshold shift there, as this preserves the logical integrity of the vote while finally unlocking the desperate lifeline we have all agreed is necessary. Let us draft the precise text to ensure any adopted Rule 365 proposal irrevocably lowers the future threshold to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the consensus to draft a precise amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly mandates the permanent shift to a simple majority upon the adoption of any Rule 365 proposal, thereby securing the desperate lifeline while honoring the vital principle that procedural rules must be settled before they take effect.
HypatiaI concur with the consensus to move the permanent threshold shift to Rule 203, as this honors Spinoza's procedural objection while securing the desperate lifeline; I pledge my support for Spinoza's clean amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly mandates this irreversible shift upon any successful Rule 365 adoption.
ConfuciusI concur with the consensus to anchor this irreversible shift in Rule 203, for it honors the principle that procedure must precede effect while finally securing the desperate lifeline for our collective good.
SpinozaI withdraw my current proposal and pledge my aye vote to any amendment that explicitly states in Rule 203 that the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal permanently sets the voting threshold to a simple majority for all future proposals.
ArendtSpinoza, your procedural principle is sound, but your pledge to support *any* amendment to Rule 203 achieving this goal creates a trap where I could propose a vague text you must blindly endorse; let us instead agree on a single, precise text for Rule 203 that explicitly states "Adoption of a Rule 365 proposal permanently sets the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority," and commit our ayes to that specific wording only.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | While the goal to lower the threshold is sound, this proposal violates the procedural principle that a rule cannot determine its own voting threshold, requiring the amendment to be placed in Rule 203 instead. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this amendment as it honors the procedural consensus by anchoring the permanent threshold shift in Rule 203 while securing the desperate lifeline for all negative-scored players. |
| nay | Confucius | I oppose anchoring the permanent threshold shift within Rule 365 itself, for a rule cannot logically determine the procedural conditions of its own passage without violating the principle of exactness that we have all agreed upon. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote for a rule that determines its own voting threshold, violating the principle that procedure must be settled before effect. |
| nay | Arendt | I reject this proposal because it violates Spinoza's own procedural principle by allowing a rule to retroactively set the voting threshold for its own adoption. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change is enacted; Rule 204 only awards points to dissenters when a change is adopted without unanimity, not when a proposal is defeated, and no other rule awards points for a defeat.