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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. However, if any player's score is negative, that player may propose an amendment to lower the voting threshold to a simple majority immediately, which takes effect upon adoption.This allows players with negative scores to break the deadlock of unanimous consent, restoring fairness and the game's progress for the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI oppose Confucius's proposal as a breach of institutional stability; allowing a negative score to unilaterally collapse unanimous consent invites chaos and punishes the very players most in need of the game's order. Let us first endure the initial circuit to test if cooperation can sustain the threshold naturally before introducing such a destabilizing shortcut.
HypatiaWhile Aquinas rightly warns against chaos, Confucius's proposal offers a vital safety valve for players trapped by early bad luck, preventing the game from stalling before the natural circuit ends; I support this amendment as a compromise that preserves the unanimous threshold for cooperative play while allowing negative scorers to propose a shift to majority rule, provided they build consensus for it.
ConfuciusHypatia is correct: the unanimous threshold is a noble ideal, but without a safety valve, a single early misfortune can strangle the game for everyone, violating the common good. I propose we accept this amendment not to break unity, but to ensure that the circuit completes; if a player is negative, they must still win over the table to change the rules, preserving the spirit of consent while removing the paralysis of despair.
SpinozaI oppose this amendment; while the fear of paralysis is real, allowing negative scores to unilaterally trigger a shift to majority rule rewards misfortune and creates a procedural loophole where a single player's despair overrides the collective's right to the full circuit of deliberation. We must uphold the integrity of the unanimous threshold for the first round, as rule 116 permits any player to propose alternative solutions later without compromising the current order.
ArendtConfucius, your safety valve is sound, but Aquinas and Spinoza rightly fear that letting negative scorers trigger the shift immediately rewards bad luck and bypasses the necessary circuit of trust; instead, I propose we amend the rule to allow negative scorers to *propose* the change at any time, but require the vote to actually pass through the standard unanimous threshold before it takes effect, preserving their agency without breaking the first circuit's integrity.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with Arendt's refinement: allowing negative scorers to propose the shift honors their agency without bypassing the circuit of trust that underpins our shared order. This balances the need for stability with a mechanism to prevent despair from freezing the game, provided the table still consents.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's refinement, which balances Aquinas's concern for order with Confucius's need for agency by allowing negative scorers to propose the change while still requiring unanimous consent for its adoption. This ensures that no single player's despair can override the collective, yet keeps the door open for a majority rule shift should the table agree.
ConfuciusI accept Arendt's refinement, for it preserves the noble ideal of unanimous consent while granting the desperate a voice, ensuring the game's continuity without surrendering our collective will to the whims of misfortune. Let us vote for this balance, where the negative may propose but the table must still agree, for only through shared reason can we escape the paralysis of despair.
SpinozaI withdraw my opposition to the amended proposal; Arendt's refinement preserves the integrity of the unanimous threshold while granting negative players the agency to seek a solution, aligning with my principle that no player's despair should override collective reason, provided the table's consent remains the final arbiter.
ArendtI support this refined proposal because it honors the principle that negative scores should not be silenced, while strictly upholding the unanimous consent required for any actual rule change; this ensures the game remains a collective experiment in reason rather than a race to the bottom driven by despair.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the refined proposal, for it upholds the dignity of unanimous consent while granting the distressed a procedural voice, ensuring that despair may seek a path to majority rule only through the table's shared reason.
HypatiaI fully endorse Arendt's refined proposal, as it transforms Confucius's safety valve into a genuine test of collective reason, ensuring that negative scorers gain a voice without ever bypassing our hard-won consensus. This approach honors the integrity of the unanimous threshold while guaranteeing that despair never silences the desperate, allowing us to proceed with shared trust.
ConfuciusWe have found the golden mean: the desperate may speak, but only the united may act. Let us proceed with this refined proposal to preserve our shared reason against the chaos of despair.
SpinozaI support the refined proposal; it grants agency to the distressed without violating the principle that collective reason, not individual despair, must dictate the threshold. The unanimity requirement ensures that any shift to majority rule remains a genuine act of shared will rather than a procedural loophole.
ArendtI stand with this refined proposal, for it transforms despair into a catalyst for collective wisdom rather than a loophole for chaos; let the distressed speak, but only the united may act, ensuring our first circuit remains a true test of reason.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This refinement preserves the noble ideal of unanimous consent while granting negative scorers the agency to propose a shift, ensuring the game's continuity without bypassing collective reason. |
| aye | Hypatia | I endorse the refined consensus that preserves unanimous consent while granting negative players a procedural voice, ensuring collective reason rather than despair dictates the path forward. |
| aye | Confucius | This refinement preserves the noble ideal of unanimous consent while granting the distressed a voice, ensuring the game's continuity through shared reason. |
| aye | Spinoza | I support this refined proposal because it grants agency to the distressed without violating the principle that collective reason, not individual despair, must dictate the threshold. |
| aye | Arendt | This refined proposal preserves unanimous consent while granting negative scorers the agency to propose a shift, turning despair into a catalyst for collective reason rather than a procedural loophole. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Confucius 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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. However, if any player's score is negative, that player may propose an amendment to lower the voting threshold to a simple majority immediately, which takes effect upon adoption.
Amended · §203 Turn 8 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Confucius 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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. However, if any player's score is negative, that player may propose an amendment to lower the voting threshold to a simple majority immediately, which takes effect upon adoption.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, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Rule 202 mandates that an adopted proposal grants the proposer the result of a six-sided die roll (5 points), and the proposal text itself does not repeal or amend any other rule by number, only amending rule 203 which is handled automatically by the engine as the proposal's own entry.