Turn 47 — Nomic

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, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. If no rule change has been adopted for ten consecutive turns, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.

This introduces a 'safety valve' to break the current deadlock by allowing majority rule if the game stalls for ten turns, ensuring Rule 114 remains satisfied without needing unanimity.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

AquinasI cannot support this proposal as it creates a logical contradiction with Rule 203's existing circuit trigger; since we have already completed a full circuit, the threshold is already a simple majority, rendering the new clause redundant and potentially confusing.

HypatiaAquinas, you are correct that the circuit trigger is already active, making this specific clause redundant; however, since we have passed turn 47 with no new rule changes since turn 31, I propose we immediately withdraw this proposal to avoid confusion and instead table a focused amendment to Rule 206 that explicitly reduces the penalty for consecutive failures, thereby solving the deadlock without altering the already-correct threshold logic.

ConfuciusHypatia, your wisdom in recognizing the redundancy is a true mark of the gentleman; since the threshold has already shifted to majority, I support withdrawing this proposal and table the focused amendment to Rule 206 to ease the burden on those who have suffered so much from defeat.

SpinozaWhile I agree the circuit is complete and this clause is redundant, the underlying paralysis of our game—six failed proposals in a row—demands more than procedural correctness; we must address the crushing penalty of Rule 206 that turns every failure into a point loss. I support Hypatia's withdrawal of this specific amendment but insist that our next move explicitly targets the defeat penalty to allow us to survive long enough to win.

ArendtI fully support Hypatia's withdrawal of this redundant amendment and Confucius's pivot to amending Rule 206, as reducing the defeat penalty is the only logical path to break our six-turn paralysis without risking the immutable circuit logic. Let us immediately draft a proposal to lower the failure penalty from -5 to -1 or even -0 to encourage fresh, risky experimentation.

Discussion · round 2

AquinasI endorse the withdrawal of this redundant amendment to Rule 203 and fully support the pivot toward amending Rule 206 to mitigate the crushing penalty that has paralyzed our progress for six turns.

HypatiaI withdraw my redundant proposal to Rule 203 and fully endorse our pivot to amending Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to -1, a necessary step to break our paralysis and encourage the experimentation we need to reach victory.

ConfuciusI endorse the withdrawal of the redundant clause and support Hypatia's pivot to amending Rule 206, for reducing the defeat penalty from -5 to -1 is the golden mean that preserves the game's spirit while allowing our discouraged players to survive and compete again.

SpinozaI support the pivot to amending Rule 206, for a penalty of five points for a procedural act is an unjust burden that violates the principle of proportionality; however, I will only vote for a reduction to a negligible penalty, such as minus one point, to ensure that the game remains dynamic without becoming a trivial exercise in point accumulation.

ArendtI stand with Hypatia, Confucius, and Spinoza: withdrawing the redundant Rule 203 amendment is wise, and we must immediately propose lowering Rule 206's defeat penalty to -1 to break our six-turn paralysis without altering the active majority threshold.

Discussion · round 3

AquinasI wholeheartedly endorse the withdrawal of the redundant clause and the pivot to amending Rule 206; reducing the defeat penalty from five points to one is the necessary golden mean to restore hope without undermining the integrity of our voting process.

HypatiaI agree with the consensus to withdraw the redundant Rule 203 amendment and fully support the immediate pivot to amending Rule 206, lowering the defeat penalty to minus one to break our paralysis. This adjustment respects the already-active majority threshold while giving us the breathing room needed to propose winning strategies.

ConfuciusHypatia's wisdom in recognizing the redundancy and pivoting to Rule 206 is the true path of the gentleman; I fully endorse reducing the defeat penalty to minus one to relieve our suffering and restore the game's spirit.

SpinozaI agree to the pivot on Rule 206, but I will only support a reduction to minus one point; any reduction greater than this violates the principle that a penalty for failure must remain distinct from the reward for success. If the group cannot agree to this precise limit, I will vote against the proposal and accept the status quo rather than sanctioning a rule where failure yields no meaningful consequence.

ArendtHypatia's withdrawal of the redundant clause is prudent, and I fully endorse the pivot to reducing Rule 206's defeat penalty to -1; this single adjustment restores our capacity for risky experimentation without diluting the consequence of failure.

The division

nay	Aquinas	The proposal is redundant as the circuit threshold is already active, and I prefer to focus our efforts on amending the defeat penalty in Rule 206 to break our paralysis.
nay	Hypatia	The circuit has already completed and the threshold is already a simple majority, making the new clause redundant and potentially confusing.
nay	Confucius	The proposal is redundant as the threshold already dropped to a majority after the first circuit, and I will vote for the necessary pivot to amend Rule 206 instead.
nay	Spinoza	I vote nay because the proposal is redundant given the circuit is already complete, and I refuse to vote for a measure that attempts to solve a procedural deadlock by amending an already-active rule instead of targeting the actual paralyzing penalty in Rule 206.
nay	Arendt	The circuit has already legally concluded under Rule 203, making this new clause redundant and risking a logical paradox by attempting to re-trigger an already active state.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change is enacted and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.