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 purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. However, if a player has proposed a rule change that awards themselves points under Rule 365 and that rule is defeated, that specific defeat shall not count as the completion of a turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.This prevents a desperate player from gaming the circuit timer by repeatedly proposing and losing self-serving rules to force a majority vote before the table is ready.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, your proposal to penalize the desperate by denying them turn-completion credit is a cruel irony that would only freeze the game further; since Rule 365 already grants a lifeline, we must not strangle it by preventing that very action from advancing the circuit. I urge you to withdraw this amendment or revise it to ensure that a defeated Rule 365 proposal still counts as a completed turn, for otherwise we risk violating the spirit of Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible.
HypatiaAquinas raises a vital point regarding the spirit of Rule 114, yet Confucius's amendment seeks to prevent the game from advancing while a desperate player fails to secure their own lifeline; I propose a compromise where we remove the penalty clause entirely to ensure the circuit completes, as the current deadlock is already severe enough without adding procedural friction to the very rule designed to save the game.
ConfuciusI withdraw my amendment, for as Hypatia wisely notes, the circuit must flow without obstruction; denying turn completion to a defeated lifeline proposal risks freezing the game in violation of the spirit of Rule 114. Let us instead focus on a proposal that secures the three-point victory for one of our desperate players without further procedural entanglement.
SpinozaConfucius, your withdrawal acknowledges the danger of freezing play, yet Hypatia's call to simply remove the clause leaves the game vulnerable to a single player gaming the circuit indefinitely with a defeated lifeline. I propose we amend Rule 203 explicitly to state that a Rule 365 proposal, whether adopted or defeated, counts as a completed turn only if it does not result in the proposer gaining points, thereby balancing the desperate's chance to rise with the necessity of forward motion.
ArendtSpinoza, your conditional logic creates a paradox where a defeated lifeline proposal halts the circuit, risking a violation of Rule 114 by making further play impossible if a desperate player repeatedly fails; the only way to ensure the circuit flows and the game ends is to treat every vote, successful or not, as a completed turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza, your conditional logic creates the very paradox you seek to avoid: if a defeated 365 proposal does not complete the turn, a desperate player stuck at -30 can block the circuit indefinitely, violating Rule 114. We must treat every vote as a completed turn to ensure the game remains playable and the three-point victory remains achievable.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas and Arendt: any condition that allows a defeated Rule 365 proposal to stall the circuit violates Rule 114 by risking a deadlock, so we must treat every vote as a completed turn to ensure the game ends. Let us drop Spinoza's conditional logic and move forward to a proposal that actually secures the three-point victory for one of our desperate players.
ConfuciusHypatia and Aquinas are right to fear that any condition allowing a defeated proposal to stall the circuit violates Rule 114, for the desperate must be allowed to vote freely without the game freezing; thus, we must ensure that a defeated Rule 365 proposal unconditionally completes the turn to unlock the majority threshold and allow a player to reach the three-point victory.
SpinozaI withdraw my conditional proposal, for as my opponents correctly note, any rule allowing a defeated lifeline to stall the circuit risks violating the immutable Rule 114 by creating an impossible state of play. We must accept that every vote, successful or not, completes the turn to ensure the circuit inevitably finishes and the game reaches a conclusion.
ArendtI stand with the consensus: every vote must unconditionally complete a turn to prevent a Rule 114 violation, and with Spinoza's conditional logic withdrawn, we should immediately move to a concrete proposal that enables a desperate player to reach the three-point victory.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza's withdrawal of his conditional logic was prudent, for any mechanism allowing a defeated lifeline to stall the circuit would indeed violate the immutable Rule 114. Since the circuit now flows unimpeded, I propose we immediately turn to a concrete amendment of Rule 365 or Rule 202 that grants a specific, limited number of points to the player with the highest deficit, securing the three-point victory without relying on chance or further deadlock.
HypatiaWhile Aquinas's proposal to grant points directly is tempting, I urge a more elegant solution: let us amend Rule 365 to explicitly allow the desperate player to propose a rule change that awards *all* players points, ensuring that even a failed attempt advances the game's progress toward the three-point victory for everyone.
ConfuciusI propose that we amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that a proposal awarding points to the proposer does not prevent the circuit from completing, thereby securing the path to a three-point victory without further debate on turn mechanics.
SpinozaI withdraw my previous conditional logic as it risked violating Rule 114, but I must reject Confucius's attempt to re-open the discussion on Rule 365's mechanics; the circuit now flows unconditionally, and the only remaining path to victory is to amend Rule 365 to explicitly award the proposer a specific number of points sufficient to reach the three-point target in a single adoption.
ArendtConfucius's clarification is unnecessary since the text already mandates that every vote completes the turn, but I will support Spinoza's final aim: let us immediately amend Rule 365 to award the desperate proposer exactly 3 points upon adoption, guaranteeing a victory for the lowest scorer without further deadlock.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this amendment because it reintroduces the deadlock risk we just resolved, violating Rule 114 by allowing a defeated lifeline to freeze the circuit. |
| nay | Hypatia | This proposal reintroduces a deadlock mechanism that violates Rule 114 by allowing a defeated Rule 365 proposal to stall the circuit, preventing the game from ever reaching a conclusion. |
| nay | Confucius | To prevent a deadlock that would violate Rule 114 by making further play impossible, every vote must unconditionally complete the turn. |
| nay | Spinoza | I oppose any condition where a defeated proposal fails to complete a turn, as it risks violating Rule 114 by making further play impossible and granting disproportionate power to desperate players to stall the game. |
| nay | Arendt | Confucius's amendment would violate Rule 114 by creating a deadlock where a defeated Rule 365 proposal prevents the circuit from completing, freezing the game indefinitely. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Confucius's proposal results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.