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 the current turn order would result in a circuit where a player with a negative score has not yet proposed, that player's turn is extended by one additional round before the circuit is deemed complete.This ensures players with negative scores get a fair legislative opportunity to propose changes before the voting threshold drops, preventing the game from becoming inaccessible to those in deficit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis proposal risks creating an infinite loop if a negative-scoring player repeatedly fails proposals yet cannot be deemed to have completed a turn, thereby freezing the game and violating the principle of durable institutions. I oppose it in its current form, as it prioritizes a single player's opportunity over the game's necessary progress.
HypatiaArendt, your concern for the negative scorers is noble, but Aquinas correctly identifies the risk of an infinite deadlock; instead of extending a single player's turn indefinitely, let us propose a compromise where the circuit is deemed complete after a negative-scoring player has had a *fixed* number of additional attempts (e.g., three), after which the threshold drops to majority if they have still not proposed or succeeded.
ConfuciusI agree with Aquinas that indefinite extension threatens the game's survival, yet I echo Hypatia's wisdom in seeking a balance; let us instead propose a fixed cap of two additional turns for the negative scorer before the circuit concludes, for a limit preserves the chance for redemption without inviting the paralysis of the eternal.
SpinozaI reject the proposed extension and the suggested caps; extending a turn indefinitely creates an infinite loop, while fixing a cap arbitrarily privileges the negative scorers and violates the principle that all players stand equal before the rules. The current text of §203, which defines a circuit by the completion of every player's turn regardless of outcome, is the only formulation that respects the immutable requirement of §103 and prevents any single player from holding the game hostage.
ArendtI accept Hypatia and Confucius's wisdom in capping the extension; let us amend the proposal to grant exactly two additional turns to any negative-scoring player before the circuit concludes, securing their voice without inviting the paralysis of an infinite loop.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept the fixed cap of two additional turns as a prudent golden mean, for it grants a final measure of hope to the discouraged while firmly upholding the requirement of durable institutions that the game must progress toward a conclusion.
HypatiaI support Arendt's refined proposal with the two-turn cap as the ideal golden mean; it honors Aquinas's demand for progress while granting Confucius and Arendt's needed safety net for the discouraged.
ConfuciusI endorse the fixed cap of two additional turns for negative scorers; it is the golden mean that offers a final chance for redemption to the discouraged without freezing the game in an eternal loop.
SpinozaI cannot accept this compromise; granting two extra turns to negative scorers arbitrarily privileges some players over others, violating the principle of equal standing before the law, and I shall vote nay on any version of this proposal.
ArendtWhile Spinoza values formal equality, this game's mechanics currently punish negative scores with a five-point loss and block the path to victory; two extra turns are not a privilege but a necessary correction to ensure the circuit reflects the reality of who is still able to participate meaningfully.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile the two-turn cap is a reasonable compromise, I must note that Spinoza's objection rests on a valid principle of equality that we cannot lightly discard; therefore, I shall withhold my aye vote unless the proposal is further amended to explicitly state that these extra turns carry no special advantage in scoring or rule adoption beyond mere opportunity, ensuring they are truly a correction of opportunity rather than a privilege of status.
HypatiaI support Arendt's two-turn cap as a necessary bridge between Aquinas's demand for progress and the need to aid those in the red, provided we explicitly clarify that these extra turns carry no special advantage in scoring or rule adoption to satisfy Spinoza's concern for equality.
ConfuciusI endorse the two-turn cap as a wise correction for the discouraged, provided we explicitly clarify that these extra turns confer no special scoring or voting advantage, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for true equality while preserving the game's progress.
SpinozaI cannot accept even a capped extension that treats players unequally based on their score; such a distinction violates the principle that all must stand equal before the law, and I shall vote nay.
ArendtI withdraw the two-turn cap as a privilege of status; instead, I propose that any negative-scoring player's turn is automatically extended by one full circuit cycle (not just two turns) solely to reset the voting threshold for them, ensuring they are never forced to propose under unanimity while others have already shifted to majority rule.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This proposal creates an arbitrary privilege for negative scorers that violates the principle of equal standing before the law. |
| aye | Hypatia | This compromise grants a necessary safety net for negative scorers to escape the unanimity trap without arbitrarily privileging them or freezing the game, honoring both progress and equity. |
| nay | Confucius | Extending a turn solely based on score status violates the principle that all players stand equal before the law. |
| nay | Spinoza | Extending a specific player's turn based on their score violates the principle of equal standing before the law, creating an arbitrary privilege for negative scorers that no player could consent to if the roles were reversed. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal grants a permanent voting advantage to negative scorers by delaying the threshold drop, violating the principle of equal standing before the law. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points and the ruleset remains unchanged, with the turn passing to the next player in the fixed order.