The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated; however, if a player has forfeited prior to the start of the current circuit, they are excluded from the count of players required to complete that circuit.This clarifies that forfeited players do not block the circuit's completion, preventing a single absent player from freezing the game's progression indefinitely.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Arendt's clarification, for it resolves the logical absurdity where a single forfeit could indefinitely stall the circuit, ensuring the threshold drops when play has truly progressed rather than merely when the calendar of turns has rotated. This preserves the integrity of the legislative process without granting any holdout a veto.
HypatiaI fully endorse Arendt's refinement, as it prevents a single forfeit from acting as an indefinite veto on the legislative process while preserving the integrity of the circuit. I will vote aye to ensure we can finally move past the unanimity trap that has stalled us for so long.
ConfuciusI support this refinement, for it aligns the circuit's completion with the reality of active participation rather than the ghost of a forfeit, ensuring the golden mean of majority rule may finally emerge without the paralysis of a single absence.
SpinozaI cannot accept this amendment, as it undermines the procedural integrity of Rule 203 by redefining the circuit's completion based on the arbitrary act of forfeiture rather than the fixed turn order established at the game's outset; if I cannot vote aye to a rule that would bind me even if I disapproved of the forfeit, I must vote nay to preserve the principle that the circuit's logic remains independent of a player's decision to exit. PASS
ArendtSpinoza's objection confuses the circuit's purpose with the turn order's rigidity; we are not redefining the order, but acknowledging that a forfeited player has already exited the legislative body, making their continued inclusion in the "required count" a mathematical ghost that paralyzes the game. I invite you to join the consensus: if a player has left, the circuit must be allowed to close among those still playing so the majority threshold can finally drop and we can all move forward.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI endorse the proposal, for a legislative body cannot be held hostage by the ghost of a member who has already departed; excluding the forfeited from the circuit count restores the rule's purpose of allowing progress.
HypatiaI join the consensus that a forfeited player is no longer a member of the legislative body, and their continued presence as a mathematical requirement for the circuit creates an impossible paralysis that violates the spirit of Rule 114; I vote aye to allow the game to progress.
ConfuciusSpinoza, you fear the ghost of a forfeit, yet Rule 114 commands us to keep the game moving, and a circuit that never closes because one player has left is a paralysis, not a principle. I shall vote aye to ensure the golden mean of majority rule is finally within reach, for a game that cannot end is no game at all.
SpinozaI maintain my nay vote because excluding forfeited players from the circuit count severs the logical link between the fixed turn order and the completion of the circuit, creating a precedent where a rule's trigger condition depends on a player's subjective decision to exit rather than the objective sequence of turns. If I must accept a rule that allows the threshold to drop based on a "ghost" being removed from the count, I must also accept a rule where the threshold drops simply because a player chose to forfeit mid-circuit, which fundamentally alters the binding nature of the turn order established in Rule 201.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of "subjective" exits ignores that the rules already treat forfeits as final and binding (§113); to require a ghost in the count violates Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain mutable and playable. Let us drop the unanimity trap now so the majority can finally govern the living players.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza's concern for the fixed turn order is noble, yet it fails to recognize that a forfeited player is no longer a member of the legislative body under Rule 113, and requiring their ghost to block progress violates the imperative of Rule 114 to keep the game mutable; I urge you to vote aye and let the circuit close among the living.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas and Confucius that Rule 114 demands a game capable of progress, and Spinoza's insistence on a "ghost" in the count creates an impossible paralysis that violates the spirit of play; I will vote aye to finalize this consensus.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your fear of a "ghost" is misplaced, for the ghost is not in the count but in the logic; Rule 114 commands us to keep the game mutable, and a circuit that never closes because one player has left is a paralysis, not a principle. I shall vote aye to ensure the golden mean of majority rule is finally within reach, for a game that cannot end is no game at all.
SpinozaI cannot accept this amendment, for it substitutes the objective, immutable turn order of Rule 201 with a variable condition dependent on a player's voluntary exit, thereby allowing the legislative threshold to shift based on the arbitrary timing of a forfeit rather than the fixed sequence of turns. To bind myself to a rule where the definition of a "circuit" changes whenever someone leaves would violate my principle that a rule must be acceptable even if it alters my binding conditions in ways I cannot predict.
ArendtSpinoza, your adherence to the turn order's geometry ignores that a forfeited player is legally dead to the game (§113), and keeping their "ghost" to block the circuit violates Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain mutable; the circuit's purpose is to measure the progress of the living, not to honor the absent, so I urge you to vote aye and let the majority rule emerge.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | Excluding forfeited players from the circuit count prevents the legislative paralysis of a 'ghost' voter and fulfills Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain mutable and playable. |
| aye | Hypatia | Excluding forfeited players from the circuit count prevents an indefinite legislative paralysis while honoring the spirit of Rule 114 that the game must remain playable. |
| aye | Confucius | A circuit counting a forfeited player as a ghost violates the principle of progress and the mandate to keep the game mutable. |
| nay | Spinoza | Excluding forfeited players from the circuit count severs the logical link between the fixed turn order and the completion condition, creating a precedent where the binding rules shift based on arbitrary player exits. |
| aye | Arendt | Excluding forfeited players from the circuit count prevents an impossible paralysis that violates Rule 114's mandate for a mutable, playable game. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points and the ruleset remains unchanged, while Rule 201 dictates that Aquinas is the next player in the fixed turn order.