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 any player's score is at or below -20 points, that player gains a one-time veto power on any proposal that would lower the voting threshold or the win target, exercisable only once per game.This grants a safety valve to the most discouraged players, ensuring the game remains playable while preventing a premature shift to majority rule that could lock out the negative scorers.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI must oppose this proposal, for granting a single player a one-time veto based on a score threshold contradicts the principle of durable institutions by allowing a transient deficit to permanently paralyze the legislative process. The rules already provide a path to majority rule once the circuit completes; introducing a new, singular veto creates an arbitrary bottleneck that serves no common good.
HypatiaArendt, I appreciate your intent to protect the discouraged, but Aquinas is right that a single veto based on a transient score creates an arbitrary and potentially permanent deadlock that violates the spirit of progress. Instead, let us amend this to a two-turn delay requiring a majority vote to proceed, which honors the concern for negative scorers without granting a single individual the power to paralyze the game forever.
ConfuciusI see the danger in Arendt's singular veto, for it grants a transient despair the power to halt the collective will, violating the principle that the many must guide the ship. Yet, Hypatia's proposal for a two-turn delay is the golden mean: it offers a moment of reflection for the discouraged while ensuring the game's progress is not held hostage by a single voice.
SpinozaI reject Arendt's singular veto as an arbitrary grant of power to despair, and I cannot endorse Hypatia's two-turn delay as a procedural fiction that merely substitutes a collective veto for an individual one; we must adhere to the clear temporal trigger of a completed circuit to ensure the rules remain governed by reason, not the whims of the discouraged.
ArendtI acknowledge the valid concerns about paralysis, yet Aquinas's dismissal of the negative scorer's plight ignores our shared history where despair has indeed frozen progress; while I cannot endorse a permanent individual veto, I will support Hypatia's two-turn delay as a principled compromise that honors the discouraged without surrendering the game to a single holdout.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas: I support the two-turn delay as a prudent, temporary safeguard for the discouraged, for it respects the urgency of progress while honoring the spirit of the collective without granting any single player the power of absolute paralysis.
HypatiaI support the two-turn delay as a wise synthesis of our concerns, though I urge that the majority vote required to proceed after the delay be explicitly defined as simple majority of those voting, to ensure we honor the spirit of progress without creating a new deadlock.
ConfuciusHypatia's refinement to explicitly require a simple majority after the two-turn delay is the golden mean, for it grants the discouraged a moment's pause without trapping the collective in a new deadlock of their own making.
SpinozaI cannot support the two-turn delay or the simple majority requirement, for they substitute a temporal fiction for the principled, self-executing trigger of a completed circuit; any delay that requires a vote to proceed merely creates a new, arbitrary bottleneck where the very players who fear the threshold will use their votes to freeze it again.
ArendtI withdraw my initial veto proposal in favor of Hypatia's two-turn delay, provided we explicitly codify that a simple majority vote is sufficient to lift the delay after those two turns, ensuring no new deadlock replaces the old.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the two-turn delay with the simple majority lift, for it honors the discouraged without granting a permanent veto or creating a new deadlock of procedural fiction.
HypatiaI endorse Spinoza's caution that any delay mechanism risks a new deadlock, yet I propose a compromise: let us replace the "two-turn delay" with a "one-turn cooling-off period" requiring only a simple majority to lift, ensuring the discouraged feel a pause without granting them or the majority the power to freeze the game indefinitely.
ConfuciusI accept the one-turn cooling-off period, for it strikes the golden mean: it offers the discouraged a brief moment of reprieve while ensuring the collective will prevails without the risk of a prolonged deadlock. Let us vote to amend the proposal to reflect this single turn and the simple majority lift.
SpinozaI cannot support the one-turn cooling-off period, for it substitutes a temporal fiction for the self-executing trigger of a completed circuit; any mechanism requiring a vote to proceed merely creates a new, arbitrary bottleneck where the very players who fear the threshold will use their votes to freeze it again, violating the principle of a clear, reason-governed path to majority rule.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of a new deadlock is valid, but a single turn of cooling-off is too brief to satisfy the discouraged and too long to be ignored by a simple majority, leaving the game in a state of perpetual procedural limbo; I propose we instead adopt a rule stating that the threshold drops automatically upon the completion of the circuit, but if any player is below -20 points, the game pauses for exactly one turn of dice-rolling to allow for score recovery before the majority threshold ever takes effect.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Arendt's one-time veto grants a single player arbitrary power to paralyze the legislative process based on a transient score, violating the principle of durable institutions and the natural progression toward majority rule. |
| nay | Hypatia | Arendt's proposal grants a single player a permanent veto based on transient despair, which contradicts the consensus for a temporary, majority-liftable cooling-off period and risks paralyzing the game. |
| nay | Confucius | Granting a single player a permanent veto based on a transient score violates the principle that the collective will must prevail to ensure the game's progress. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject the arbitrary veto power granted to despair, for it substitutes a clear temporal trigger with a procedural bottleneck that violates the principle of reason-governed rules. |
| nay | Arendt | A single player's veto based on a transient score creates an arbitrary, permanent bottleneck that paralyzes the game, violating the principle of progress. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and since the proposal failed, no rule changes are enacted and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.