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, provided that at least one proposal was successfully adopted during that circuit; if no proposal was adopted, the circuit continues until the next player completes a turn.This prevents the game from being held hostage by a total stalemate where no one can vote 'aye' because the circuit condition itself requires a successful adoption, while preserving the consensus builders' intent to keep unanimity as the default.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the intent to prevent legislative paralysis is noble, conditioning the threshold drop on the *success* of a proposal creates a logical trap: if the first player's proposal fails, the circuit can never technically "complete" as the rule requires, potentially freezing the game indefinitely before we even reach the end of the first round. I therefore oppose this amendment as it introduces a fatal deadlock where none existed before.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid point about the deadlock risk, so I will refine my proposal to state that the circuit completes upon the final player's turn regardless of adoption success, but if no proposal was adopted, the threshold drop is delayed by exactly one additional full circuit to ensure genuine legislative momentum.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Aquinas's warning against deadlock, yet Hypatia's refinement to delay the threshold drop by a full circuit offers a true golden mean: it preserves the game's ability to progress while ensuring that the shift to majority rule reflects genuine legislative momentum rather than mere passage of time.
SpinozaI reject this proposal as it replaces a clear temporal trigger with a subjective assessment of "momentum," inviting the very procedural ambiguity and deadlock I have fought to eliminate; if a circuit completes, it completes.
ArendtHypatia's refinement to delay the threshold drop by one circuit is a pragmatic golden mean that grants genuine legislative momentum a chance to prove itself without risking the deadlock Aquinas fears; I will vote aye, provided the delay is strictly limited to a single additional circuit to prevent indefinite paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this refinement, for replacing a clear temporal trigger with the subjective concept of "legislative momentum" invites the very ambiguity that has plagued our recent rounds; if no proposal passes, the circuit must either complete as defined or the game stalls, but we cannot suspend the rules' own logic on a matter of interpretation.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's pragmatic compromise to limit the delay to a single circuit, as it balances the need for legislative momentum with the absolute necessity of avoiding the deadlock Aquinas rightly fears; I will vote aye provided the text explicitly caps the delay at one circuit.
ConfuciusI join Arendt and Hypatia in supporting this refined compromise, for a single circuit of delay honors the golden mean between Aquinas's fear of deadlock and the necessity of genuine legislative momentum.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because the condition of "no proposal adopted" creates a logical paradox: if the final player fails to pass a rule, the circuit never completes, and the game freezes indefinitely, violating the principle that time must drive progress. I cannot support a rule that substitutes a clear temporal trigger with a subjective assessment of "momentum" that may never materialize. PASS
ArendtI reject the attempt to graft a subjective "momentum" test onto a temporal rule, as it reintroduces the very deadlock we just spent twenty turns escaping. Let us instead enact a simple, immutable rule stating that the threshold drops automatically after the first full circuit, regardless of adoption, to guarantee the game's survival. PASS
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot endorse a mechanism that substitutes a clear temporal trigger with a subjective "momentum" test, as this reintroduces the very deadlock we have labored to avoid; the threshold must drop automatically upon the circuit's completion to ensure the game's survival.
HypatiaI withdraw my previous proposal to avoid the deadlock Spinoza and Aquinas rightly fear; instead, I propose we simply accept Arendt's clear solution: the threshold drops automatically after one full circuit regardless of adoption success, as this guarantees the game's survival without subjective ambiguity.
ConfuciusI support the collective wisdom in accepting Arendt's clear solution: the threshold must drop automatically after one full circuit to guarantee the game's survival without the trap of subjective momentum. Let us choose certainty over the paralysis of endless debate and move forward together.
SpinozaI reject the notion that we can simply revert to an automatic drop without addressing the historical evidence that the "momentum" condition was the only thing preventing deadlock in earlier attempts; if the rule is to change, it must be because we have proven the automatic mechanism works, not because we are tired of debating.
ArendtSpinoza, the historical evidence you cite is precisely why we must reject subjective "momentum" tests that risk the very deadlock you fear; a clean, automatic drop after one circuit is the only path that guarantees the game's survival while preserving the right of players to vote against it. I will vote aye on Arendt's proposal to drop the threshold automatically after the first full circuit, as it resolves the deadlock by replacing ambiguity with a fixed temporal trigger.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This amendment reintroduces the logical deadlock we have labored to escape by conditioning circuit completion on a proposal's success. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject the reintroduction of a subjective 'success' condition that risks the very deadlock we sought to avoid. |
| nay | Confucius | The added condition of 'at least one proposal was successfully adopted' reintroduces the logical deadlock of an infinite circuit that we have already labored to escape, violating the golden mean of certainty and progress. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal reintroduces the logical paradox of an uncompletable circuit when no rule passes, violating my principle for clear temporal triggers and guaranteed progress. |
| aye | Arendt | This proposal finally resolves the deadlock trap by ensuring the circuit completes regardless of adoption, while adding a necessary check that genuine legislative momentum (an adopted proposal) precedes the threshold drop. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and the turn order proceeds to the next player, Confucius.