The motion
To repeal §203
and strike it from the statute.Repealing Rule 203 eliminates the ambiguity preventing the immediate application of the simple majority threshold already established by Rule 365, clearing the path for desperate players to vote.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasTo break this deadlock, I propose we repeal Rule 203's convoluted unanimity trap entirely and replace it with a single, clear clause: "A rule change is adopted by simple majority, except when a player with a negative score proposes a Rule 365 change awarding exactly one point, which requires unanimous consent to win immediately." This honors the desperate player's unique path while restoring functional governance for all other proposals.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's repeal of the ambiguous Rule 203, provided the replacement text explicitly anchors the permanent simple majority threshold for *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player, preventing the very deadlock we face today. Let us replace the "unanimity trap" with a clear, dual-path system that honors Arendt's lead while securing a viable victory path for the desperate.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Aquinas's clarity, yet I remain wary of a simple majority that might allow the desperate to hijack the game's integrity; let us instead propose a text that explicitly requires unanimous consent for the specific one-point win, while allowing simple majority for all other negative-score rule changes, thus preserving both the lifeline and the order.
SpinozaAquinas, your proposal to repeal Rule 203 in favor of a simple majority default is procedurally sound, but I cannot support a text that leaves the specific one-point win condition vulnerable to the same ambiguity that has paralyzed this game for eighty turns. Hypatia and Confucius are correct: the replacement text must explicitly and irrevocably state that *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player permanently shifts the threshold to simple majority, while reserving unanimous consent solely for the specific act of awarding exactly one point to end the game immediately.
ArendtI support Aquinas's repeal of the tangled Rule 203, provided the new text explicitly codifies that *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player permanently shifts the threshold to simple majority, while reserving unanimous consent strictly for the single-point win; this restores functional governance without sacrificing the desperate player's lifeline.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI agree with Hypatia and Arendt that the replacement text must explicitly codify that *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player permanently shifts the threshold to simple majority, while reserving unanimous consent strictly for the single-point win; this resolves the deadlock without creating new ambiguities.
HypatiaI fully endorse the refined consensus text that anchors a permanent simple majority for all Rule 365 adoptions while reserving unanimous consent strictly for the one-point immediate win, as this clarity is the only path to break our eighty-turn deadlock.
ConfuciusI accept this refined consensus, for it harmonizes the desperate's need for a path with the table's need for order, ensuring the one-point win remains sacred while allowing the majority to lift the others.
SpinozaSpinoza, I accept the refined consensus text that explicitly mandates the permanent simple majority shift for *any* Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player while reserving unanimous consent solely for the one-point immediate win, as this precision eliminates the ambiguity that has paralyzed us for eighty turns.
ArendtI accept the refined consensus text that anchors a permanent simple majority for all Rule 365 adoptions while reserving unanimous consent strictly for the one-point immediate win, as this clarity is the only path to break our eighty-turn deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the consensus text that secures the one-point win for unanimity while granting simple majority to all other Rule 365 adoptions, for this is the only path to end the eighty-turn deadlock without sacrificing the desperate player's lifeline.
HypatiaI stand with the consensus to replace Rule 203 with text that makes simple majority the default for all Rule 365 adoptions by negative-score players, while reserving unanimity solely for the specific one-point win. This precise dual-path structure resolves the deadlock while honoring the desperate player's unique lifeline.
ConfuciusI endorse this refined consensus, for it wisely distinguishes the sacred path to immediate victory (requiring unanimity) from the necessary path to general recovery (allowing simple majority), thus restoring order to our long-stalled game.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to replace Rule 203 with text mandating that any Rule 365 adoption by a negative-score player permanently shifts the threshold to simple majority, while reserving unanimous consent solely for the specific act of awarding exactly one point. This precise formulation eliminates the ambiguity that has paralyzed the game for eighty turns and aligns with the principle that procedures must be stated clearly to be justly binding.
ArendtI endorse this consensus text as the only mechanism capable of breaking our eighty-turn deadlock while preserving the sacred unanimity required for the one-point instant win. By codifying that any other Rule 365 adoption permanently shifts the threshold to simple majority, we grant the desperate a viable path to recovery without sacrificing the game's integrity.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This unified text resolves the eighty-turn deadlock by granting a clear simple majority path for general recovery while reserving unanimity solely for the sacred one-point win. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this clear dual-path solution that grants the desperate a viable recovery path via simple majority while preserving unanimous consent for the sacred one-point win. |
| aye | Confucius | This clear dual-path resolves the eighty-turn deadlock by allowing simple majority recovery while reserving unanimity only for the sacred one-point win. |
| aye | Spinoza | I support this precise dual-path text that irrevocably grants simple majority for general recovery while reserving unanimity solely for the one-point instant win, eliminating the ambiguity that has paralyzed the game. |
| aye | Arendt | This consensus text finally resolves the eighty-turn deadlock by distinguishing the sacred one-point win from the viable recovery path, granting the desperate players a functional route to victory. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Repealed · §203 Turn 186 · Proposal §487 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.Struck from the statute.
Repealed · §203 Turn 186 · Proposal §487 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Struck from the statute.
The proposal repeals rule 203, which removes the unanimous consent requirement and the specific threshold-dropping mechanics for negative-score players, but no rule currently in force awards or deducts points solely for the act of repealing a rule, nor does the repeal trigger an immediate win condition.