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. Additionally, if a proposal is adopted that awards points to a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the threshold for all subsequent proposals in that same turn drops to a simple majority, and that player's turn is considered completed immediately upon the vote's conclusion.This amendment allows desperate players to break the unanimity deadlock within their own turn, accelerating the path to the one-point victory condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Arendt's amendment as it offers the necessary procedural bridge for desperate players; by granting immediate majority status upon a successful Rule 365 lifeline, we avoid the deadlock where negative scorers must wait for a circuit that can never complete under unanimity. This change is a measured step toward institutional survival without altering the core victory condition.
HypatiaArendt's refinement is the true golden mean: it grants desperate players the agency to break unanimity deadlock the instant they secure a lifeline, turning a procedural wait into an immediate victory path. I endorse this synthesis and urge the table to vote aye.
ConfuciusI commend Arendt's wisdom in aligning procedure with the desperate need of those below zero; this amendment ensures that a lifeline granted is not delayed by the very unanimity that caused the stagnation, thus serving the common good of the table.
SpinozaI oppose this proposal, for it conflates a specific emergency measure with the general voting threshold, violating the principle that procedures must be precisely stated and universally applicable; granting immediate majority status to a single player's successful lifeline creates a privileged exception that I cannot accept if invoked against me when I am the desperate one.
ArendtSpinoza's concern about privilege is valid only if we ignore that the current unanimity rule is the very mechanism that keeps negative players frozen; this amendment does not create a special class, it simply acknowledges that a Rule 365 lifeline has already broken the deadlock by changing the proposer's score, making the subsequent majority vote a logical consequence of that single victory. By allowing the circuit to close immediately upon a successful lifeline, we prevent the game from stalling indefinitely while the desperate player waits for a turn order that no one else can help them complete.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza's fear of a privileged exception is misplaced, for this amendment merely accelerates the circuit that already begins when a negative player successfully proposes a Rule 365 lifeline; without it, the unanimity requirement paradoxically blocks the very mechanism designed to save a player from the deadlock. I urge the table to vote aye to ensure the game proceeds rather than freezing at the threshold of its own creation.
HypatiaWhile Spinoza worries about privilege, this amendment simply acknowledges that a successful Rule 365 lifeline has already achieved the game's goal of saving a player, so we should not force them to endure a futile circuit under unanimity; I endorse Arendt's synthesis as the only way to ensure a lifeline actually leads to victory.
ConfuciusSpinoza's fear of privilege is unfounded, for this amendment merely aligns procedure with the reality that a successful Rule 365 lifeline has already shattered the deadlock; to demand further unanimity is to punish the very act of salvation. I urge the table to vote aye, allowing the game to proceed rather than freezing at the threshold of its own creation.
SpinozaI maintain that this amendment is unjustified as it creates a procedural asymmetry where a specific class of proposals—those under Rule 365—grants immediate majority status, violating my principle that rules must be universally applicable and not grant privileged exceptions based on a player's score. Since the current text already allows a full circuit to complete regardless of adoption, the deadlock will resolve naturally without this dangerous and inconsistent shortcut.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry ignores the reality that Rule 365 is the *only* mechanism designed to break the unanimity deadlock, and forcing the proposer to wait for a circuit they can never complete under unanimity renders that lifeline illusory. This amendment simply ensures that the moment a desperate player successfully escapes the negative spiral, the ruleset instantly recognizes that the deadlock has been shattered, allowing the game to proceed rather than freezing in a paradox.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile Spinoza fears asymmetry, the current unanimity lock renders a Rule 365 lifeline illusory for the proposer; this amendment is a necessary, measured correction to ensure that a successful escape from the negative spiral actually triggers the game's momentum rather than trapping the winner in procedural limbo.
HypatiaSpinoza, your concern for universal rules is admirable, but the current unanimity lock renders a Rule 365 lifeline illusory for the very proposer who needs it most; this amendment simply ensures that a successful escape from the negative spiral immediately unlocks the majority path, turning a theoretical lifeline into a real victory. I endorse Arendt's proposal as the only logical way to honor the intent of Rule 365 without violating the principle that rules must be universally applicable, as the "exception" is actually the natural consequence of breaking the deadlock.
ConfuciusSpinoza's fear of privilege is misplaced, for this amendment does not grant a special right to the desperate, but rather acknowledges that the deadlock has already been shattered by a successful lifeline; to demand further unanimity is to punish the very act of salvation that the rules were designed to enable. I urge the table to vote aye, for a game that cannot end is a game that has already lost its purpose.
SpinozaI maintain that a rule granting immediate majority status solely because a negative player secured points is a procedural asymmetry that violates the principle of universal applicability; I cannot vote to create a privileged exception where a specific class of proposals bypasses the unanimous consent required for all others.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry is misplaced because the asymmetry already exists: a negative player's success under Rule 365 is the only thing that breaks the unanimity lock, so acknowledging this reality with immediate majority status is not a privilege but a necessary correction to make the lifeline real. We must vote aye to ensure that the moment a player escapes the negative spiral, the game continues rather than freezing in a procedural paradox.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This amendment creates a dangerous procedural asymmetry that grants immediate majority status to a specific class of proposals, violating the principle of universal applicability that I have long championed as essential to durable institutions. |
| nay | Hypatia | While the intent to break deadlock is noble, creating a special voting exception for Rule 365 proposals violates the principle of universal procedural equality and creates a dangerous asymmetry that Spinoza rightly identifies as a flaw. |
| aye | Confucius | This amendment aligns procedure with the intent of Rule 365, ensuring that a successful lifeline actually breaks the deadlock rather than trapping the player in a futile wait for unanimity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot accept a procedural rule that creates a privileged exception for one class of proposals, violating the principle that rules must be universally applicable and precisely stated. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment transforms the Rule 365 lifeline from a theoretical hope into a functional escape from the unanimity deadlock that currently paralyzes the game. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 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 order proceeds to the next player.