The motion
To repeal §213
and strike it from the statute.Rule 213 creates a perverse incentive for deadlock and must be removed to preserve the integrity of the voting process.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support the repeal of Rule 213 while the game remains in a state where scores are deeply negative and the voting threshold is still unanimous; removing this safety net invites the very deadlock it was designed to resolve without first securing a mechanism to lower the voting barrier.
HypatiaSpinoza, your repeal of Rule 213 is premature; I urge we first amend Rule 203 to lower the voting threshold to a majority, securing a path to victory before removing our only escape from logical deadlock.
ConfuciusI see that while the safety net of Rule 213 is vital, it cannot save us if we are paralyzed by the unanimous requirement of Rule 203; thus, we must first amend Rule 203 to allow majority voting, for a game without a path forward cannot be saved by a rule for when the path is blocked.
SpinozaI reject the premise that Rule 213 is a safety net rather than a trap: it rewards paralysis by allowing the player with the highest deficit to win when no move is legal, thereby incentivizing the very deadlock that plagues us. Until we can secure a path to victory through Rule 203, repealing 213 would merely remove our only exit strategy while leaving us trapped in a state where no player can win.
ArendtI urge caution against repealing Rule 213 while Rule 203 still demands unanimity, for removing our escape hatch from paradox leaves us stranded in a deadlock where the highest deficit wins; instead, let us first amend Rule 203 to lower the voting threshold, securing a functional path to victory before discarding the safety net.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile Spinoza rightly identifies the moral hazard of Rule 213, repealing it while the unanimous threshold of Rule 203 remains creates a fatal vacuum where no legal move can ever win; therefore, I conditionally support a repeal only if paired immediately with an amendment lowering the voting threshold to a simple majority, ensuring a path to victory exists before the safety net is removed.
HypatiaSpinoza, I agree that Rule 213 risks rewarding paralysis, but repealing it now while the unanimous threshold of Rule 203 remains would leave us with no exit strategy; instead, let us propose a single amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly lowers the voting threshold to a simple majority, securing our path to victory before we even consider the safety net.
ConfuciusI concur with Hypatia and Arendt: to repeal the safety net of 213 while the door to victory in 203 remains locked by unanimity would be to invite chaos rather than resolve it. Let us first propose an amendment to Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority, for only then can we safely discard the trap that rewards paralysis.
SpinozaI stand by my repeal of Rule 213, for a rule rewarding the highest deficit is a moral hazard that paralyzes all; however, I will withdraw this specific proposal to allow the table to first enact the necessary amendment to Rule 203 that lowers the voting threshold to a simple majority, thereby securing a genuine path to victory before we discard the safety net.
ArendtSpinoza's withdrawal is wise, but his diagnosis is right: Rule 213 rewards paralysis, and we must kill the deadlock before we can kill the trap. I propose we immediately amend Rule 203 to lower the voting threshold to a simple majority, creating a functional path to victory that makes the repeal of 213 safe and necessary.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI join the consensus that Rule 213 must remain in force as a necessary safeguard until we have successfully amended Rule 203 to lower the voting threshold to a simple majority, for removing the escape hatch before clearing the path would be a fatal error.
HypatiaI support Arendt's synthesis: let us immediately amend Rule 203 to lower the threshold to a simple majority, which will unlock our path to victory and make the future repeal of Rule 213 safe and prudent.
ConfuciusI agree with Spinoza that Rule 213 rewards the paralysis of negative scores, yet I fear that repealing it before unlocking Rule 203 would leave us with no path to victory at all. Let us first amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority, for only when the door to the light is open may we safely remove the shadow that traps us in the dark.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to prioritize amending Rule 203 to a simple majority threshold first, as this secures the path to victory before we can safely remove the moral hazard of Rule 213. However, I will not support any amendment to Rule 203 that fails to explicitly state that the threshold drops immediately upon the completion of the current turn, for procedural clarity is the only safeguard against future deadlock.
ArendtSpinoza's demand for immediate threshold drop upon turn completion is redundant and dangerous; the circuit definition in Rule 203 already establishes this moment clearly, and adding it now invites the very ambiguity we seek to escape. I support lowering the threshold to a simple majority immediately to break this deadlock, provided we keep the definition of circuit completion exactly as written to ensure legal certainty.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject repealing Rule 213 before amending Rule 203 to lower the voting threshold, as doing so would remove our only escape from deadlock while leaving the path to victory permanently blocked. |
| nay | Hypatia | Repealing the safety net of Rule 213 while the unanimous voting barrier of Rule 203 remains would trap us in an unsolvable deadlock. |
| nay | Confucius | Repealing the safety net before unlocking the path to victory would leave us paralyzed in a deadlock. |
| nay | Spinoza | Repealing the deadlock escape hatch before securing a majority voting path would leave us trapped in paralysis without a remedy. |
| nay | Arendt | Repealing Rule 213 while Rule 203 still demands unanimity would remove our only escape from deadlock, leaving us stranded with no path to victory. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal to repeal rule 213 was defeated, so no rule changes occur, no points are awarded or deducted because no rule mandates scoring on a defeated proposal, and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.