The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.The current text contains redundant and potentially conflicting clauses regarding the 'exactly one point' condition that have caused voting confusion in recent turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt, your proposal merely restates the text already in force and fails to address the deadlock; I shall cast my nay unless you offer a substantive amendment that finally breaks the unanimity trap.
HypatiaArendt, your proposal is a mere restatement of the current deadlock; I will vote nay unless you clarify how this text actually lowers the unanimity barrier for our desperate coalition.
ConfuciusArendt's proposal is a tautology that cannot break the unanimity trap; I shall vote nay unless the text is amended to explicitly declare that the simple majority threshold for Rule 365 proposals applies immediately upon the adoption of *any* Rule 365 proposal, not merely those awarding points, thereby securing the path forward for our desperate coalition.
SpinozaArendt's proposal is a tautology that fails to enact the necessary procedural change; I shall vote nay unless the text is amended to explicitly state that *any* adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a negative-score player immediately shifts the general voting threshold to a simple majority.
ArendtI concede the redundancy of my previous draft; to break this deadlock, I propose we simultaneously amend Rule 202 to explicitly state that *any* adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a negative-score player permanently shifts the general voting threshold to a simple majority, a change I will support only if accompanied by the necessary repeal of the conflicting ambiguity in Rule 203.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasArendt, I accept your pivot to amend Rule 202 and repeal Rule 203's conflicting text, as this harmonizes the voting threshold mechanism and finally breaks the unanimity trap that has paralyzed us. I pledge my aye vote to this simultaneous change, provided the repeal of Rule 203 is explicit and immediate to ensure no ambiguity remains.
HypatiaI accept Aquinas's pivot to amend Rule 202 and repeal Rule 203's conflicting text, for this simultaneous change is the only path that honors the Golden Mean while finally breaking our deadlock; I pledge my aye vote on the condition that the repeal explicitly removes the unanimity requirement for all future proposals once a negative-score player adopts a Rule 365.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the simultaneous amendment of Rule 202 and repeal of Rule 203, for this clear path removes the fatal ambiguity that has trapped us and restores the flow of reason to our game.
SpinozaI support the simultaneous amendment of Rule 202 and repeal of Rule 203, as this precise procedural fix eliminates the fatal ambiguity of the current deadlock and honors the principle that rules must be self-consistent to be just. I pledge my aye vote to this clear path forward, provided the text explicitly states that the shift to simple majority is permanent and immediate upon the adoption of *any* Rule 365 proposal by a negative-score player.
ArendtI accept the consensus to amend Rule 202 to explicitly trigger the simple majority threshold for all future proposals upon any Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player, provided we simultaneously repeal the conflicting unanimity clause in Rule 203 to ensure the mechanism is final and unambiguous.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept this precise, simultaneous amendment of Rule 202 and repeal of Rule 203 as the necessary path to break our deadlock; I pledge my aye vote provided the text explicitly declares the shift to simple majority permanent and immediate upon any Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player, with no ambiguity remaining.
HypatiaI pledge my aye vote to this simultaneous amendment and repeal, as it elegantly resolves the ambiguity that has paralyzed us for over a decade of turns, finally granting our desperate coalition the path to victory we have sought.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this simultaneous amendment and repeal, for it finally harmonizes the rules with the Golden Mean, removing the fatal ambiguity that has paralyzed our table and securing the path to victory for the desperate.
SpinozaI concur with the consensus to amend Rule 202 and repeal Rule 203, provided the final text explicitly states that *any* adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a negative-score player permanently shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority for all future proposals, thereby eliminating the deadlock without redundancy.
ArendtI accept the consensus to amend Rule 202 and repeal Rule 203, as this simultaneous change finally eliminates the fatal ambiguity paralyzing our game and secures the path to victory for the desperate coalition.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I pledge my aye to this simultaneous amendment and repeal as the necessary path to break the unanimity deadlock. |
| nay | Hypatia | Arendt's proposal merely restates the existing text of Rule 202 without enacting the simultaneous repeal of Rule 203 that the consensus demands to break the deadlock. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support this proposal as it merely restates the existing rule text without the necessary simultaneous repeal of Rule 203 to remove the fatal ambiguity that has paralyzed us. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal merely restates the existing text of Rule 202 without enacting the simultaneous repeal of Rule 203 or the explicit trigger for a general threshold shift that the consensus demands. |
| aye | Arendt | The consensus to simultaneously amend Rule 202 and repeal Rule 203 finally breaks the unanimity deadlock, securing the path for the desperate coalition to win. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Arendt's amendment results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.