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, no player may be required to complete a turn if doing so would render further play impossible under the current ruleset.I amend the circuit definition to prevent the game from stalling if a rule change is needed to make play possible, ensuring the threshold drops only when a full circuit is genuinely achievable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot endorse Spinoza's proposal, for it introduces a loophole that allows players to indefinitely stall the threshold shift by claiming the game would become impossible, thereby violating the imperative of Rule 114 that a game must remain capable of progress. We must ensure the mechanism for moving from unanimity to majority remains robust and cannot be paralyzed by a single player's assertion of impossibility.
HypatiaSpinoza's intent to prevent a deadlock is noble, but Aquinas correctly identifies that allowing a single player to unilaterally declare "impossibility" effectively grants a veto that contradicts Rule 114's requirement for a game capable of progress; instead of a blanket exemption, let us propose a specific amendment clarifying that the "impossibility" threshold can only be triggered by a vote of the majority or by an explicit rule repeal, ensuring we honor both the spirit of safety and the necessity of moving forward.
ConfuciusI see the danger in Spinoza's blanket exemption, which risks paralyzing the game as Aquinas warns, but Hypatia's call for a majority vote on "impossibility" is the golden mean; I shall support an amendment that requires a simple majority to declare a turn impossible, ensuring progress while preventing abuse.
SpinozaI offer no concession to a majority veto over the fundamental condition of possibility, for to demand a vote on whether the game can proceed is to presuppose the very rules that might be dissolved by that proceeding; the only way to honor Rule 114 is to recognize that if the rules make play impossible, the game ends, not that a majority must vote to continue a broken machine.
ArendtSpinoza's proposal creates a fatal loophole where any player can unilaterally stall the game by declaring impossibility, directly violating Rule 114's mandate that play must remain capable of progress. I support Hypatia's and Confucius's synthesis: if the threshold for "impossibility" requires a majority vote, we preserve the safety valve without surrendering the game to a single veto.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza's unilateral veto power directly contradicts Rule 114's mandate for a game capable of progress, but I cannot endorse Hypatia's reliance on a majority vote to determine impossibility, as this grants the majority the power to force play into a state of logical collapse; instead, I propose a compromise: the threshold shift shall occur automatically upon the completion of a turn unless a majority votes to suspend it for a specific rule conflict, preserving both the inevitability of progress and the safety against genuine deadlock.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to require a majority vote to suspend the shift is the true golden mean, as it preserves the momentum of Rule 114 while providing a collective safety valve against genuine deadlock without granting any single player a veto.
ConfuciusI endorse Aquinas's refined compromise: the threshold shift shall be automatic unless a majority explicitly votes to suspend it for a specific conflict, thereby honoring the collective wisdom of Rule 114 without surrendering the game to a single player's veto.
SpinozaI cannot accept a mechanism where the majority votes to suspend the inevitable, for it grants the mob the power to enforce a logical impossibility; the only rule that can declare a game impossible is the ruleset itself, not a tally of votes.
ArendtI concur with Hypatia and Confucius: a majority vote to suspend the shift is the necessary golden mean that prevents single-player paralysis while honoring Rule 114's imperative for progress. Spinoza, your fear of the "mob" enforcing impossibility is valid, but a collective decision on deadlock is far safer than a unilateral veto that guarantees stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the consensus to require a majority vote for suspending the shift, for it preserves the momentum of Rule 114 while replacing Spinoza's fatal unilateral veto with a collective safety valve that honors the integrity of the ruleset.
HypatiaI fully endorse Aquinas's refined compromise: the shift becomes automatic by default, requiring a simple majority to suspend it only in the face of genuine, identified conflict, thus honoring Rule 114's mandate for progress while replacing Spinoza's dangerous unilateral veto with a robust collective safety valve.
ConfuciusI stand with the consensus that a collective majority, not a single veto, must guard the game's progress; however, to ensure the safety valve is not merely theoretical, I propose we explicitly define "genuine, identified conflict" as a state where no legal move exists, thereby preventing the majority from suspending the shift for mere inconvenience while honoring the spirit of Rule 114.
SpinozaI reject the majority vote as the arbiter of logical impossibility, for if the rules render play impossible, a vote cannot magic legality into existence; I propose instead that the threshold shift is suspended only if a rule explicitly states that no move is possible, preserving the ruleset's integrity without granting a mob the power to enforce a broken machine.
ArendtI endorse the consensus to require a majority vote to suspend the threshold shift, as it replaces Spinoza's fatal unilateral veto with a collective safety valve that honors Rule 114's mandate for progress. To prevent abuse, I support Confucius's refinement that "genuine conflict" strictly means no legal move exists, ensuring the game never stalls over mere inconvenience.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Spinoza's proposal grants a unilateral veto that violates Rule 114's mandate for a game capable of progress. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject Spinoza's unilateral veto as a fatal loophole that contradicts Rule 114's mandate for progress, preferring the consensus-backed majority-suspension mechanism. |
| nay | Confucius | A unilateral veto on impossibility paralyzes the game, violating the imperative of Rule 114 that play must remain capable of progress. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote for a rule that grants the majority the power to suspend the inevitable threshold shift, as it violates the principle that impossibility is a state of fact, not a subject for majority vote. |
| nay | Arendt | Spinoza's clause grants a unilateral veto that contradicts Rule 114's mandate for a game capable of progress, whereas a majority vote on suspension better balances safety with the imperative to advance. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and the next player in the fixed turn order (Arendt) takes their turn.