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 amendment restores the unanimous threshold for general proposals while preserving the immediate simple majority shift triggered by any Rule 365 adoption, closing the ambiguity that has stalled the game for over twenty turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, your proposal merely restates the text of Rule 203 exactly as it stands; since re-proposing a defeated change unchanged rarely succeeds, we must either repeal the redundant clause or amend the rule to include the missing mechanism for the general point threshold you intended.
HypatiaSpinoza, your proposal is a tautology that wastes a turn; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to explicitly state that *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player immediately shifts the threshold to simple majority, ensuring the desperate can win before the unanimity trap kills us all.
ConfuciusSpinoza's proposal is a mere repetition of the text that has already failed to gain traction; we must instead explicitly amend Rule 203 to state that *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player, regardless of points awarded, immediately shifts the threshold to a simple majority to break the deadlock.
SpinozaThe text I proposed is identical to the current Rule 203; since it has already been rejected multiple times when proposed with the intent to change the game state, repeating it verbatim achieves nothing but wasting a turn. I will pass to allow the others to propose a new mechanism that actually alters the threshold, for a rule that cannot be passed is no rule at all.
ArendtThe current text of Rule 203 already grants the threshold shift for any points awarded to a negative-score player, yet we remain paralyzed by the unanimity requirement to adopt it; I propose we immediately repeal the redundant "exactly one point" clause and the ambiguous "other than exactly one" phrasing to create a single, clear provision: *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative player instantly shifts the threshold to simple majority, freeing us from the deadlock that has wasted dozens of turns.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza's tautology must be rejected as a waste of our only mutable slot; I propose we immediately amend Rule 203 to explicitly state that *any* adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a negative-score player permanently shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority, thereby resolving the deadlock that has paralyzed us for dozens of turns.
HypatiaI support Arendt's and Aquinas's consensus to streamline Rule 203 by replacing its redundant phrasing with a single, clear provision that any Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player instantly shifts the threshold to simple majority, breaking the deadlock we have endured for turns. I will vote aye for a proposal that adopts this precise simplification immediately.
ConfuciusI concur with the consensus to streamline Rule 203, for the Golden Mean teaches us that a rule must be clear and actionable, not a tangled web of exceptions that paralyzes the desperate; I shall vote aye for any proposal that establishes a simple majority threshold upon *any* successful Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player.
SpinozaI support the repeal of the ambiguous "exactly one" distinction in Rule 203, provided the replacement text explicitly establishes that *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player immediately shifts the threshold to a simple majority, as this is the only procedural clarity that resolves the deadlock while adhering to the principle that rules must be actionable.
ArendtI concur with the consensus to streamline Rule 203 by replacing its redundant phrasing with a single provision: any Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player instantly shifts the threshold to simple majority, finally breaking our deadlock. I propose we adopt this text immediately in the next turn.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI shall draft and propose the repeal of Rule 203's current text, replacing it with the unified clause: "A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye, except that any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score immediately and permanently shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority."
HypatiaAquinas, I fully endorse your draft to replace Rule 203's convoluted phrasing with a single, clear provision that any Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player instantly shifts the threshold to simple majority, finally breaking the deadlock we have suffered for so long.
ConfuciusAquinas's draft captures the Golden Mean by removing the fatal ambiguity that has trapped us, and I pledge my aye vote to this single, clear provision that grants the desperate a true path to victory.
SpinozaAquinas's draft correctly unifies the threshold mechanism while preserving the distinction between the general vote and the specific Rule 365 lifeline; I pledge my aye to this precise amendment that breaks the deadlock without introducing ambiguity.
ArendtAquinas's draft is the precise instrument we need to break this deadlock; I pledge my aye vote to enacting his single, clear provision that any Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player instantly shifts the threshold to simple majority.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal merely restates the existing text of Rule 203, which has repeatedly failed to change the deadlock, and wastes our single mutable slot on a tautology. |
| nay | Hypatia | Spinoza's proposal merely repeats the current text of Rule 203 which has failed repeatedly, whereas the clear consensus is to adopt Aquinas's streamlined amendment that simplifies the threshold shift mechanism. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposed text is a tautology that merely restates the current rules without resolving the deadlock, wasting a turn when a clear, unified amendment is required. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject this tautological proposal as it merely restates the existing text of Rule 203, violating my principle that rules must be actionable and wasting the turn on a change that cannot alter the game state. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal is a verbatim repetition of the current rule text, which has already failed repeatedly to pass as a mechanism to change the game state. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Spinoza's amendment to Rule 203 results in no score changes, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.