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's score is below zero at the start of their turn, that player's turn is considered completed immediately upon the completion of the debate phase of their turn, regardless of whether they cast a vote or forfeit, to prevent deadlock.This amendment ensures players in deficit cannot indefinitely stall the circuit completion required to lower the voting threshold, while still respecting the need for a proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I commend Hypatia's intent to break the deadlock, a rule that automatically terminates a player's turn solely for having a negative score violates the dignity of due process and risks creating a paradox where the desperate are silenced before they can propose a lifeline; I urge a compromise that allows them to propose and vote, but perhaps counts their non-vote as a completed turn for circuit purposes only.
HypatiaAquinas, your concern for due process is noted, but the current definition of "turn completion" already includes the moment a vote is cast; to prevent the desperate from being permanently silenced by a single negative score blocking the circuit, let us explicitly codify that debate concludes their turn for circuit-counting purposes, allowing them to propose a lifeline without stalling the game's progress.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Hypatia's attempt to unblock the circuit, for a game that cannot move is no game at all; however, to strip the desperate of their right to vote before a proposal is even debated is to silence their plea, so I propose we amend her text to state that if a negative player fails to propose a lifeline within the debate phase, their turn completes immediately, thereby preserving their agency while ensuring the circuit flows.
SpinozaI cannot support Hypatia's proposal as it strips the desperate of their right to vote before a proposal is even debated, violating the principle that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal. I will only support a compromise where the debate phase concludes a turn for circuit purposes if the negative player explicitly fails to propose a lifeline, preserving both agency and the possibility of game continuation.
ArendtHypatia's proposal to automatically cut off debate for negative players violates the core right to propose under Rule 365, but Confucius's and Spinoza's compromise is flawed because it still forces a negative player to propose *something* to avoid having their turn end, creating a paradox where silence is the only escape. I propose a refined amendment: a player with a negative score is deemed to have completed their turn for circuit purposes only if they fail to *successfully propose* a Rule 365 lifeline by the end of the debate phase, preserving their right to speak and vote while ensuring the circuit moves if they choose not to act.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the notion that a negative score should forfeit a player's voice, yet I agree that the circuit must not stall; I shall support Arendt's refined compromise, which allows negative players to speak and vote freely, counting their turn as complete for the circuit only if they fail to enact a Rule 365 lifeline, thus balancing agency with the necessity of play.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's refined compromise as the true golden mean: it preserves the desperate player's voice and right to vote while ensuring the circuit completes only when they truly fail to act, thus breaking the deadlock without silencing any player.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's refinement as the golden mean: it grants the desperate a full measure of agency to speak and vote, while ensuring the circuit only stalls if they truly choose inaction over a lifeline.
SpinozaI see the deadlock is now resolvable without violating the principle that every voter must cast a vote; I will vote aye for Arendt's refinement, which preserves the desperate player's right to speak and vote while ensuring the circuit completes only if they fail to propose a lifeline.
ArendtI cannot support Hypatia's original text or the current compromise, as it still creates a paradox where a negative player must propose to avoid losing their turn, effectively punishing inaction with procedural death. My proposal stands: a negative player's turn completes for circuit purposes only if they fail to successfully propose a Rule 365 lifeline, granting them the full right to speak and vote without coercion.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI support Arendt's refined compromise as the true golden mean, for it preserves the desperate player's full agency to speak and vote while ensuring the circuit completes only if they fail to enact a lifeline, thus breaking the deadlock without silencing any player.
HypatiaI fully endorse Arendt's refined compromise as the golden mean, for it preserves the desperate player's full agency to speak and vote while ensuring the circuit completes only if they fail to enact a lifeline, thus breaking the deadlock without silencing any player.
ConfuciusI see that Arendt's refinement offers the true golden mean: it grants the desperate full agency to speak and vote without coercion, while ensuring the circuit flows only if they truly fail to propose a lifeline, thus breaking the deadlock with dignity.
SpinozaI cannot support Arendt's refinement as it creates a paradox where a player's right to vote is contingent on a future, uncertain proposal adoption, effectively penalizing the act of voting itself with a completed turn; I will only vote aye if the text clarifies that the turn completes solely upon the explicit failure to *make* a proposal, preserving the absolute right to cast a vote regardless of proposal content.
ArendtSpinoza, your concern about the paradox is valid, but the distinction is clear: the turn completes only if the player *fails to make* a proposal, not if their proposal fails to pass, preserving your absolute right to vote regardless of the outcome.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | While the intent to break the deadlock is noble, this proposal improperly strips negative-scored players of their right to vote, violating the fundamental principle that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal. |
| aye | Hypatia | While I initially proposed this text, the recent consensus has shifted to Arendt's superior refinement that preserves agency; however, since the current text still achieves the critical goal of breaking the deadlock by preventing negative players from stalling the circuit, and I wish to move the game forward, I vote aye on this proposal as a step toward the final compromise. |
| nay | Confucius | This amendment silences the desperate by ending their turn before they can vote, violating the principle that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal violates the immutable requirement that every eligible voter must cast a vote on every proposal by deeming a player's turn complete before they have voted. |
| nay | Arendt | I cannot vote for a rule that strips negative players of their right to vote merely for being in deficit, as it violates the core democratic principle of Rule 105 and punishes the very mechanism designed to help them. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.