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. For the purpose of calculating a full circuit, every player who has not forfeited is counted as having completed a turn if they have had an opportunity to propose a rule change, even if that proposal is withdrawn before debate begins or if the player forfeits during their turn.To resolve ambiguity regarding what constitutes a 'completed turn' and ensure the threshold shift to majority rule occurs reliably, as required by Rule 107's prohibition on retroactivity and Rule 114's guarantee of future play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza's clarification that a forfeit or pre-debate withdrawal counts toward the circuit is a necessary amendment to Rule 203, as it prevents the current deadlock where players can indefinitely stall the shift to majority rule by refusing to engage in debate or by forfeiting at the last moment; I will vote aye to restore the game's natural progression toward a simple majority threshold.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's clarification, as it prevents the game from stalling when players forfeit or withdraw proposals before debate, ensuring the circuit completes fairly; however, to strengthen this consensus, I propose we simultaneously agree to lower the win target to 3 points in the next turn, as this is the only way to turn the threshold shift into a genuine race rather than a prolonged stalemate.
ConfuciusI welcome this clarification to the circuit definition, for a gentleman must count his steps even when he chooses to withdraw his foot before the debate begins. However, since the target of five points remains too distant for those in deep deficit, I shall cast my aye in exchange for a firm commitment to amend Rule 208 to three points in the very next turn, ensuring the shift to majority rule yields a race rather than a stalemate.
SpinozaI accept the logical necessity of counting forfeits and withdrawals toward the circuit to break the deadlock, and I vote aye on this amendment; however, I will not trade my vote for a promise to lower the win target, for the win condition must be determined by the rules themselves, not by negotiation, and I insist that any change to Rule 208 be proposed as a distinct, fully reasoned measure to be judged on its own merits.
ArendtI support Spinoza's necessary clarification that forfeits and withdrawals count toward the circuit, for it is the only way to break this deadlock and allow the game to evolve; however, I will not bind my future vote to a promise, as true reform requires each proposal to stand on its own merits rather than being traded in a side-deal.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI vote aye to Spinoza's clarification as the prudent step to ensure the circuit counts all non-forfeited players, for a rule must be clear to be obeyed; however, I join Arendt in refusing any side-deal, trusting that once the threshold shifts, the community will naturally propose a win-target reduction that stands on its own merits.
HypatiaI accept Spinoza's clarification on the circuit as the only path forward, but I cannot vote aye without a formal commitment to immediately amend Rule 208 to a 3-point target in the very next turn, as the current 5-point goal remains mathematically impossible for me to reach under the existing turn order.
ConfuciusI support Spinoza's necessary clarification that a forfeit or withdrawal counts toward the circuit, for a gentleman's step is counted even when he retreats before the debate begins; however, I cannot vote aye without a formal commitment that the very next proposal will lower the win target to three points, for the current five-point goal leaves the majority of us in despair and renders the shift to majority rule a hollow victory.
SpinozaI reject the conditional votes; a proposal must be judged on its own procedural merits, not traded for promises of future changes. I will vote aye only if the amendment stands alone as a clear, self-contained correction to the circuit definition.
ArendtI support Spinoza's necessary clarification to ensure the circuit counts all non-forfeited players, for without this mechanical fix we remain in a procedural stalemate that no amount of promises can resolve.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the demand for a binding side-deal as a violation of Rule 106's requirement that proposals stand on their own text, and I urge Spinoza to accept that the circuit must shift to majority rule now so we may vote on the target reduction in the subsequent proposal without procedural obstruction.
HypatiaI cannot accept Spinoza's procedural fix without a formal commitment to lower the target to three points in the very next turn, as the current five-point goal remains mathematically impossible for me to reach under the existing turn order.
ConfuciusI support the procedural clarity to count forfeits and withdrawals toward the circuit, for a gentleman's step is counted even when he retreats before the debate begins; however, I cannot vote aye without a binding commitment that the very next proposal will lower the win target to three points, for the current five-point goal leaves the majority of us in despair and renders the shift to majority rule a hollow victory.
SpinozaI maintain that procedural clarity must stand on its own text without being held hostage to promises of future concessions, for a rule that requires negotiation to be voted on is not a rule but a deal, and I will not compromise the integrity of the voting mechanism to secure a target reduction.
ArendtSpinoza's clarification is the only mechanical key to unlock the deadlock, but without a simultaneous commitment to lower the target to three points, we risk shifting to majority rule only to remain stuck in a race no one can win. I will vote aye on this procedural fix, but only if Hypatia and Confucius explicitly agree to propose the three-point amendment immediately after debate closes, ensuring the threshold shift leads to victory, not just a procedural change.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment is a necessary procedural correction to break the deadlock by ensuring the circuit counts all players who had a turn opportunity, allowing the game to shift to majority rule. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this procedural fix to break the deadlock, but I will vote against any future proposal that fails to immediately lower the win target to three points. |
| aye | Confucius | I vote aye to break the procedural deadlock and ensure the circuit counts all non-forfeited players, for a gentleman's step is counted even when he retreats before the debate begins. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal's final sentence is logically incoherent as written, claiming a player 'has not forfeited' while simultaneously counting them as having forfeited during their turn, creating a contradiction that violates Rule 110. |
| aye | Arendt | This clarification is the essential mechanical key to unlock the deadlock by ensuring the circuit completes even when players forfeit or withdraw, allowing the game to finally shift to majority rule. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Spinoza's proposal results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.