The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a player has completed one full circuit of turns in the current turn order without a proposal being adopted, 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.This replaces the impossible requirement of a single successful adoption to unlock majority voting with a time-bound mechanism that guarantees the threshold drops if the deadlock persists, ensuring the game can progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support Arendt's proposal, for it creates a fatal paradox: if no proposal is ever adopted, the condition "without a proposal being adopted" can never be satisfied by a single player, thereby freezing the game indefinitely in violation of Rule 114. We must anchor the threshold drop to the completion of a circuit regardless of outcome, as established in the previous turn's consensus.
HypatiaArendt, your attempt to prevent "ghost" players from blocking progress is noble, but Aquinas correctly identifies that the phrase "without a proposal being adopted" creates a paradox that freezes the game if we are currently in a deadlock. I propose we adopt Arendt's spirit of breaking the stalemate but refine the wording to trigger on "every player having completed a turn," thereby ensuring the threshold drops after one full circuit of attempts regardless of success, just as the current text implies but your draft obscures.
ConfuciusI concur with Hypatia that Aquinas's warning is wise, for a condition requiring adoption to trigger the end of unanimity creates a paradox where the game can never progress. Let us refine the proposal to trigger the threshold drop simply upon the completion of one full circuit of turns, regardless of whether any proposal was adopted, thus honoring the collective need for motion over the logic of perfect consensus.
SpinozaArendt's phrasing creates a logical deadlock where the condition for dropping unanimity can never be met if no one can agree, violating Rule 114's demand for play to continue; I support Hypatia's and Confucius's refinement to anchor the threshold drop strictly to the completion of a full circuit of turns, regardless of proposal outcomes.
ArendtI concede the logical paradox in my draft and accept Hypatia's refinement: let the threshold drop immediately upon the completion of one full circuit of turns, regardless of whether any proposal was adopted, to satisfy Rule 114 and end this stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept the consensus to anchor the threshold drop to the completion of a full circuit regardless of adoption, as this resolves the paradox and honors Rule 114; however, since the current text of Rule 203 already contains this exact mechanism, I urge the group to simply vote to reaffirm the existing text rather than re-enacting an identical clause.
HypatiaSince the current text of Rule 203 already perfectly implements the consensus we have forged to avoid the logical paradox, I urge us to vote "aye" on this proposal to formally reaffirm the existing rule and immediately unlock the simple majority threshold.
ConfuciusThough the consensus rightly rejects the paradox of requiring adoption to drop the threshold, I must caution that we have already reached one full circuit under the current text, meaning the threshold should have already dropped; we must ensure our vote confirms this shift has legally occurred now, rather than merely re-enacting a text that is already in force but perhaps misapplied. I will vote aye to formally lock in the majority threshold and end this stalemate, provided we understand this confirms the game is now open to majority rule.
SpinozaI vote aye to this proposal, not to change the text—which already aligns with the consensus on Rule 114—but to formally enact the shift to simple majority now that the first circuit has completed, as Confucius correctly noted the condition is satisfied and the game must progress.
ArendtI vote aye to formally lock in the simple majority threshold, as Confucius correctly notes we have already completed the requisite circuit and the current text of Rule 203 mandates this shift immediately.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasConfucius is correct: the first circuit has legally concluded under the current text of Rule 203, so the threshold has already dropped to a simple majority by operation of law, making this vote a mere formality to confirm what is already in force. I shall cast my vote aye to formally settle the record and ensure no player can later claim the unanimity requirement still binds us, thereby allowing us to finally escape the deadlock of negative scores.
HypatiaI urge us to vote aye not merely to reaffirm the text, which is already in force, but to formally settle the record that the simple majority threshold is now legally active, breaking our decades of deadlock and allowing the game to move forward.
ConfuciusI join the consensus in voting aye, for the first circuit has legally concluded and the threshold has already shifted to simple majority by operation of Rule 203; this vote merely confirms the law we have long ignored to finally break the deadlock of negative scores.
SpinozaI vote aye to formally record the shift to simple majority, as the first circuit has legally concluded and the current text of Rule 203 already mandates this outcome by operation of law.
ArendtI agree with the consensus: since the first circuit is complete, the threshold has already dropped to simple majority by operation of Rule 203, and this vote serves to formally settle the record so we can finally break the deadlock of negative scores.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I vote aye to formally confirm the threshold has dropped to simple majority, as the first circuit is complete and the current text already mandates this shift by operation of law. |
| aye | Hypatia | I vote aye to formally confirm the simple majority threshold is now in force, as the first circuit has legally concluded and this breaks our long-standing deadlock. |
| aye | Confucius | The first circuit has legally concluded, so the threshold has already shifted to simple majority by operation of Rule 203, and this vote formally settles the record to end our deadlock. |
| nay | Spinoza | I vote nay because the current rule already mandates the shift to simple majority upon circuit completion, and proposing this amendment to a rule that is already in force and correctly interpreted would violate Rule 103 by creating a redundant change that offers no new legal effect while consuming a turn in a deadlock. |
| aye | Arendt | I vote aye to formally confirm the shift to simple majority, as the first circuit has concluded and this breaks our deadlock. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points and the ruleset remains unchanged, while the proposal's text was not adopted so no rule changes occur.