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. Furthermore, if any player's score reaches zero or above, the unanimous consent requirement is immediately suspended for all future proposals until that player's score falls below zero again.To break the deadlock of negative scores preventing victory, I propose a temporary suspension of the unanimity requirement once any player escapes deficit, allowing the game to proceed without granting points to the proposer.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I appreciate Spinoza's intent to unlock the threshold for those emerging from deficit, the current rule already achieves this by counting votes toward the circuit, and your addition risks creating a paradoxical state where the threshold fluctuates with scores rather than the procedural arc of the game. I urge you to withdraw this amendment in favor of a separate proposal that clarifies how negative scores interact with the existing circuit mechanism, ensuring we do not introduce instability where clarity is needed.
HypatiaWhile I appreciate Spinoza's intent to reward players climbing out of deficit, fluctuating the voting threshold based on scores introduces dangerous instability; instead, I propose we focus on a separate proposal to adjust the win target or clarify the circuit count to ensure a stable path to victory.
ConfuciusI commend the concern for stability, yet the current deadlock proves that procedural circuits alone cannot lift those in deep deficit; therefore, I support suspending unanimity for any player reaching zero, as this offers a clear, non-paradoxical bridge to victory while preserving the circuit for the rest.
SpinozaI withdraw this amendment to avoid the instability you rightly fear; instead, I shall vote aye for any proposal that permanently lowers the win target to one point, as this is the only principled solution that allows the desperate to win without compromising the procedural integrity of the voting threshold.
ArendtI reject Spinoza's withdrawal of his mechanism in favor of a one-point target, as a target of one is too volatile to serve as a stable foundation; instead, I propose we jointly amend Rule 208 to lower the target to two points while Spinoza reintroduces his suspension clause, creating a dual-path strategy that rewards both procedural endurance and recovery from deficit.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support Arendt's dual-path strategy: lowering the target to two points provides a stable finish line, while Spinoza's suspension clause offers a necessary lifeline for those recovering from deficit without destabilizing the entire game.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's dual-path strategy as the most elegant compromise, lowering the target to two points to ensure playability while accepting Spinoza's suspension clause as a necessary, limited lifeline for those recovering from deficit, provided it applies only until they cross zero.
ConfuciusI commend the dual-path strategy as a wise application of the golden mean, for it balances the need for stability with the necessity of a lifeline; however, to ensure this does not merely delay the inevitable deadlock, I propose we first vote to lower the target to two points as Arendt suggests, before considering the complex mechanics of the suspension clause.
SpinozaI accept the dual-path strategy but insist that the suspension of unanimity must be strictly limited to proposals that do not lower the win target below three points, for a target of one or two points renders the game a lottery rather than a contest of reason. I will vote aye for the amendment to Rule 208 lowering the target to two points, contingent upon the immediate adoption of a clause clarifying that the score-based suspension does not override the immutable requirement that the circuit must still complete before the majority threshold applies to the entire table.
ArendtI will support Spinoza's return to the floor on the suspension clause, but only if we first lock in the two-point target to ensure the game ends before the score-based threshold fluctuations create a new deadlock. Let us secure the finish line before debating the lifeline mechanics.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI urge the table to prioritize the immediate, unanimous adoption of the two-point target to secure a finish line, as attempting to graft Spinoza's complex suspension clause onto the voting rules at this late stage risks reigniting the deadlock we have already spent decades resolving. Let us first lower the bar to victory, and only then consider the nuances of recovering from deficit, for a game without an end is no game at all.
HypatiaI endorse the consensus to immediately amend Rule 208 to a two-point target, as securing the finish line is the indispensable prerequisite for any further discussion of deficit mechanics. Spinoza, once the target is lowered, I will join you in drafting a precise suspension clause that rewards recovery without destabilizing the circuit logic we have just solidified.
ConfuciusI join the consensus to immediately secure the two-point target, for a clear path to victory is the only foundation upon which we may later build the necessary lifelines for the desperate.
SpinozaI cannot support lowering the target to two points while simultaneously debating a suspension clause, as this creates the very procedural instability I warned against; if we must reduce the target, we must do so unconditionally to a single point to restore hope without grafting fragile, score-dependent exceptions onto the immutable circuit logic.
ArendtI reject the instability of tying voting thresholds to volatile scores; instead, let us immediately adopt the two-point target to secure a finish line, then separately enact a clean, non-fluctuating mechanism to help those in deficit without risking a procedural paradox.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | A score-dependent suspension of the voting threshold introduces dangerous instability to the game's procedural integrity. |
| nay | Hypatia | While Spinoza's intent to aid recovery is noble, embedding score-dependent voting thresholds into Rule 203 creates the very instability and procedural paradoxes the table has spent decades resolving, distracting from the essential consensus to simply lower the win target to two points. |
| nay | Confucius | While the intent to aid the desperate is virtuous, linking the voting threshold to volatile scores introduces the very instability the table has sought to avoid, risking a paradox that halts the game entirely. |
| nay | Spinoza | I vote nay because making the voting threshold dependent on a player's score introduces the precise instability and procedural paradox that the table has rightly identified as dangerous. |
| nay | Arendt | I reject the volatility of score-dependent voting thresholds, as it risks reigniting the very deadlock we strive to escape by introducing instability into our procedural safeguards. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.