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. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed.I reaffirm the explicit codification of the simple majority threshold within Rule 365 to ensure the desperate player's path to victory is procedurally clear and immune to ambiguity, as the previous consensus failed only due to bundling errors.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasAquinas proposes to amend [365] by striking the final sentence that permanently shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority, for such an irreversible change to the fundamental voting architecture is premature and violates the principle of durable institutions. I offer a temporary, turn-specific simple majority for the 365 proposal alone, ensuring the desperate may act without surrendering the unanimity requirement for all future game-altering measures.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to limit the threshold shift to the 365 proposal alone is a sound compromise that respects the gravity of permanent institutional change while addressing our immediate need for a path to victory. I will support your amendment to strike the permanent shift clause, provided we explicitly retain the simple majority requirement for the 365 proposal itself to ensure the desperate can still act now.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's condition to retain the simple majority for Rule 365, for the desperate must have a path to escape their plight without the unnecessary burden of permanent institutional collapse for the sake of the living. Let us strike Aquinas's proposed final sentence, for the irreversible shift is the very mechanism that allows the game to end rather than stagnate.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's attempt to sever the permanent threshold shift, for a rule that allows a negative score to win instantly while leaving the voting architecture in a state of perpetual ambiguity violates the principle of a single, coherent legal order. If we wish to empower the desperate, we must do so by explicitly amending the text to remove the conflicting "simple majority" clause entirely, not by creating a temporary exception that invites future legal chaos.
ArendtI support striking the final sentence of Rule 365 as proposed by Aquinas, for the permanent, irreversible shift to simple majority is a trap that cements the desperation of the negative players while leaving the game's foundational architecture vulnerable to exploitation by those who have already won. Let us grant the desperate a temporary bridge to victory via simple majority, but preserve the unanimity requirement for all future rule changes to ensure the game evolves only through consensus, not coercion.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI stand firm that striking the permanent shift clause is the only path to durable institutions, as it grants the desperate a temporary bridge to victory while preserving the unanimity requirement for all future governance. Hypatia and Confucius, your conditions are met; let us proceed to vote on this precise text.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's amendment to strike the permanent shift clause, as it grants the desperate a necessary path to victory while preserving the stability of our voting institutions. However, I must insist that we explicitly retain the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 proposals within the remaining text to ensure this "temporary bridge" is functionally effective.
ConfuciusI see the danger in Aquinas's "temporary" bridge, for a rule that grants a simple majority to the desperate while leaving the permanent shift intact creates a fatal ambiguity where the game's endgame depends on a clause we have just voted to strike. I propose we strike the entire final sentence regarding the permanent shift, not as a compromise, but as a necessary step to clarify that the simple majority for Rule 365 is a singular, self-contained exception that does not bind the future, for the Golden Mean teaches us that a rule must be clear in its scope to be just.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's attempt to create a "temporary" exception that contradicts the rule's explicit statement on permanent shifts; the text must be amended to remove the contradictory final sentence entirely, leaving the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 as a singular, self-contained provision that does not bind future voting architecture.
ArendtI support striking the final sentence to preserve the game's foundational unanimity, but I must insist that the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 remain explicitly intact in the text; without that specific clause, we grant the desperate a theoretical path to vote that is legally blocked by the very ambiguity we seek to resolve.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concede to the consensus to strike the final sentence regarding the permanent shift, provided the text explicitly retains the simple majority requirement for the Rule 365 proposal itself, thereby securing the desperate a functional path to victory without compromising the game's future institutional integrity.
HypatiaI support striking the final sentence to preserve unanimity for the future, provided the text explicitly retains the simple majority requirement for Rule 365 itself, ensuring the desperate have a clear, functional path to victory without creating the ambiguity Spinoza fears.
ConfuciusI withdraw my previous support for striking the permanent shift, for without it, we create a paradox where the desperate gain a simple majority vote only to be bound by a future unanimity requirement that traps them again; the permanent shift is the only way to ensure the path to victory remains open and unambiguous once the desperate act.
SpinozaI reject the paradox of a rule that grants a simple majority to the desperate while simultaneously striking the clause that prevents the permanent shift, for this leaves the voting architecture in a state of logical contradiction. The text must be amended to explicitly state that the simple majority applies *only* to the 365 proposal and that no permanent shift occurs, for a legal order must be coherent or it is void.
ArendtI stand with Spinoza: striking the final sentence while keeping the simple majority clause creates a logical void where the desperate gain a vote but lose the permanent shift needed to ensure that victory is not immediately blocked by a return to unanimity; we must either keep the permanent shift or remove the special threshold entirely, not leave a half-baked exception.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | Striking the permanent shift preserves our foundational institutions while granting the desperate a necessary, temporary path to victory through a simple majority vote. |
| nay | Hypatia | Striking the permanent shift clause creates a logical void where the desperate gain a temporary majority but risk being trapped again by a return to unanimity, contradicting the urgent need for a guaranteed path to victory. |
| nay | Confucius | Striking the permanent shift clause while retaining the simple majority requirement creates a fatal logical contradiction that traps the desperate players, violating the principle of a coherent legal order. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject a permanent, irreversible shift to simple majority that allows a single desperate player to unilaterally dismantle the unanimity requirement for all future governance, as this violates the principle that rules must be coherent and not subject to sudden, destabilizing coercion. |
| nay | Arendt | Striking the permanent shift clause while retaining the special majority creates a fatal logical contradiction where the desperate gain a vote but immediately lose the mechanism that keeps their path to victory open. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Aquinas's amendment to Rule 365 results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.