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. Upon the adoption of any such Rule 365 proposal that awards points to a player with a negative score, the voting threshold for all future proposals permanently shifts to a simple majority of eligible voters.This amendment anchors the permanent threshold shift directly within Rule 365, ensuring the desperate players can escape the unanimity deadlock that has stalled the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis amendment elegantly secures the desperate lifeline's future viability by ensuring that a successful Rule 365 proposal permanently dismantles the unanimity trap, granting all players the simple majority needed to advance the game without requiring further fragile negotiations.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's crucial amendment to Rule 365, as it finally secures the desperate lifeline's permanence and breaks the unanimity deadlock that has paralyzed us; let us vote to adopt this text and end the stalemate.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Aquinas's proposal to permanently lower the threshold, for it honors the common good by ensuring that once the desperate find a path, the table may finally move forward without the paralyzing burden of unanimity.
SpinozaI cannot support this proposal, for it violates the principle that a rule change must be precisely defined and limited; anchoring a permanent, unconditional shift in the voting threshold for *all* future proposals within the text of a specific exception for negative-score players creates an uncontrolled scope that could bind us to a majority rule even when no negative-score player is involved. Furthermore, the current text of Rule 203 already accomplishes this threshold shift upon the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal, rendering Aquinas's addition redundant and dangerously vague regarding its trigger conditions.
ArendtSpinoza, your concern over scope is valid, but Rule 203 already mandates this exact threshold shift upon any Rule 365 adoption, making your objection to the redundancy unfounded; this amendment merely codifies the existing mechanism within the source rule to prevent future ambiguity, which is essential if we are to finally break the deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza, your fear of uncontrolled scope is misplaced; the trigger is explicitly tied to the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal, which only benefits those who must be rescued from the unanimity deadlock, thereby aligning the rule's scope precisely with the game's survival imperative. Since the current text of Rule 203 already mandates this shift, codifying it within Rule 365 merely clarifies the causal link and prevents the very ambiguity that has plagued our recent debates.
HypatiaSpinoza, your caution is noted, but since the current Rule 203 already mandates this shift, adding it to Rule 365 is merely a clarifying consolidation to prevent future ambiguity, not an expansion of scope; I urge you to join the consensus and break our deadlock.
ConfuciusThough the consensus seeks to clarify the threshold shift, I must caution that embedding a permanent, global change to Rule 203 within the specific exception of Rule 365 risks creating an unbalanced asymmetry where the desperate alone dictate the voting mechanics for the entire table. Given the history of failed attempts to anchor this shift elsewhere, I will support this proposal only if we explicitly agree to repeal the conflicting or redundant language in Rule 203 to ensure the ruleset remains logically harmonious.
SpinozaThe redundancy of duplicating Rule 203's mechanism within Rule 365 creates the very ambiguity I warned against, as it leaves the conflicting text in Rule 203 to potentially invalidate the new clause under the ordinal priority rule; I will not vote for a change that fails to explicitly repeal the prior, conflicting provision to ensure the rule is precisely defined as required.
ArendtConfucius's demand for simultaneous repeal of Rule 203 is a strategic trap that risks deadlock rather than resolving it; instead, let us proceed with this consolidation now, knowing that Rule 211 will automatically resolve any future conflict in favor of the lower ordinal number, ensuring the mechanism remains functional without needing a second vote to clear the deck.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot accept Confucius's demand to repeal Rule 203 simultaneously, as the ordinal priority of Rule 203 over 207 ensures the mechanism remains functional without creating a new voting deadlock. Spinoza, your concern regarding ambiguity is resolved by Rule 211, which dictates that the lower ordinal number controls, guaranteeing the threshold shift occurs as intended regardless of the duplication.
HypatiaSpinoza, you are correct that the duplication creates ambiguity, but rather than block the consensus, I propose we adopt Aquinas's text as written while simultaneously passing a separate, immediate amendment to repeal the conflicting clause in Rule 203, ensuring a clean rule set without the deadlock you fear.
ConfuciusI cannot support a proposal that duplicates the mechanism of Rule 203 within Rule 365 while leaving the original text intact, as Rule 211 dictates that the lower ordinal number (203) would control, rendering your new clause void and the rule set still ambiguous. We must first repeal the conflicting clause in Rule 203 to ensure the new mechanism actually functions as intended.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because duplicating the mechanism in Rule 365 without explicitly repealing the conflicting text in Rule 203 leaves us with an unresolvable contradiction where Rule 203's lower ordinal number renders your new clause void, violating my principle that rules must be precisely defined and non-contradictory.
ArendtI support Aquinas's consolidation to Rule 365 to clarify the mechanism, provided we explicitly repeal the conflicting clause in Rule 203 in a separate, simultaneous proposal to satisfy Spinoza's demand for precision and Confucius's concern for harmony.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this proposal because duplicating Rule 203's mechanism without first repealing the conflicting original text renders the new clause void under ordinal priority, failing the requirement for a precisely defined rule. |
| nay | Hypatia | While I support the goal of breaking the deadlock, I cannot vote for a proposal that creates a logical contradiction with Rule 203 without explicitly repealing the conflicting text, as Spinoza correctly identifies that the lower ordinal number would render the new clause void. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal creates a fatal contradiction by duplicating the threshold shift in Rule 365 while leaving the conflicting text in the lower-numbered Rule 203 intact, which would render the new clause void under Rule 211. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote for a change that duplicates an existing rule while leaving the conflicting text intact, as the lower ordinal number renders the new clause void and violates the principle of precise definition. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal creates a fatal contradiction with Rule 203 under Rule 211, where the lower ordinal number would render the new clause void and fail to achieve the intended permanent threshold shift. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Aquinas's proposal results in no score changes.