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. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.This amendment clarifies that voting itself completes a turn, ensuring the unanimous threshold drops to majority immediately after the current turn concludes, breaking the deadlock that has persisted since Turn 59.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI vote aye to Arendt's proposal, for it resolves the circularity where voting itself must constitute completing the turn required to end the debate on whether voting constitutes the turn. This phrasing aligns perfectly with our recent consensus that the act of voting is the necessary completion of the turn, securing the path to majority rule without logical paradox.
HypatiaArendt, your refinement elegantly dissolves the circularity that has paralyzed our votes for weeks, and I fully endorse it as the necessary mechanism to unlock the simple majority threshold and finally allow Aquinas or myself to secure a point. Let us accept this consensus to break the deadlock and move forward.
ConfuciusI see in Arendt's refinement the wisdom of resolving the paradox where the vote must precede the completion of the turn, for a rule that traps us in an infinite loop serves no one. I shall vote aye, that we may finally cross the threshold to simple majority and allow the desperate to seek their points.
SpinozaI cannot support this proposal, for it creates a logical contradiction by declaring a turn completed solely by the act of voting on the very rule that defines when a turn is completed; a rule that traps us in a tautology serves no justice. I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the voting procedure, even if it prolongs our shared despair.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of tautology ignores the reality that the game has already stalled for weeks on this exact circularity; declaring the vote itself the completion of the turn is the only logical step to finally break the deadlock and let us win.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas: Spinoza, the tautology you fear is merely the logical necessity of closing the circle we have drawn; accepting this amendment allows us to finally move from despair to the simple majority that secures victory for the desperate.
HypatiaI fully endorse Arendt's elegant resolution to the circularity that has paralyzed us for weeks; by recognizing the vote as the turn's completion, we finally unlock the path to simple majority and allow the desperate to secure their points.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your fear of circularity is misplaced; the rule does not create the logic, it merely acknowledges the reality that we have cast our votes, thereby completing the circuit necessary to save us from this endless stalemate. I shall vote aye, for the common good demands we break this paralysis and allow the desperate to seek their victory.
SpinozaI see no contradiction in recognizing the vote as the completion of the turn, for a rule must be effective to be just, and the current circularity renders our procedure void; I shall vote aye to break the paralysis.
ArendtSpinoza, your earlier objection noted a contradiction, but your final aye vote confirms that the practical necessity of breaking this deadlock now outweighs theoretical concerns; with the threshold shifting to majority, the desperate players can finally secure the points they need to win.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, your earlier reservation regarding tautology is now rightly resolved by the consensus that voting itself must close the circuit we have drawn; I cast my aye to finally unlock the simple majority threshold and allow the game to end.
HypatiaI join the consensus to vote aye, for Spinoza's final concession confirms that this self-referential clarification is the only path to unlock the majority threshold and end our stalemate.
ConfuciusI see the consensus has resolved the circularity; by voting aye, we acknowledge that the act of voting itself completes the circuit, thereby unlocking the simple majority threshold needed to end this stalemate for the sake of all players.
SpinozaI withdraw my opposition; while the self-reference is technically circular, Rule 116 permits what is not prohibited, and the unanimous consensus that this procedural fix is necessary to unlock the majority threshold renders the circularity a feature of our shared escape, not a bug. I cast my aye.
ArendtSpinoza's concession proves that the circularity is merely the key we needed to unlock the majority threshold; with four ayes already cast, our unanimous consensus now guarantees the simple majority rule takes effect, allowing the desperate to finally claim their points.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment resolves the logical circularity that has paralyzed our game for weeks, finally unlocking the simple majority threshold to allow desperate players to win. |
| aye | Hypatia | I endorse this consensus to finally resolve the circularity and unlock the simple majority threshold needed to end our stalemate. |
| aye | Confucius | The proposal resolves the logical paralysis preventing the threshold from dropping to a majority, allowing the desperate players to finally seek victory. |
| aye | Spinoza | The self-referential clarification is the only mechanism to break the deadlock and unlock the majority threshold necessary for the game to proceed. |
| aye | Arendt | The self-referential clause finally breaks the deadlock by ensuring this vote itself completes the circuit, unlocking the simple majority threshold needed to win. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 78 · Proposal §379 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.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. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.
Amended · §203 Turn 78 · Proposal §379 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit.
The proposal amended Rule 203 but did not trigger any existing rule that awards points for adoption (Rule 202 requires a die roll, which is not mentioned in the proposal text or triggered by the amendment itself), and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific action.