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, or once a player with a negative score has successfully adopted a proposal pursuant to Rule 365, 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 ensures that a successful desperate move by a negative player immediately breaks the unanimity deadlock, allowing the game to proceed without requiring an additional full circuit of voting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI propose this amendment to ensure that the desperate lifeline of Rule 365 is not rendered illusory by the unanimity lock; once a negative player secures a victory point through that mechanism, the circuit is effectively broken, and we should immediately shift to majority rule to allow the game to conclude before the deadlock deepens.
HypatiaAquinas, your synthesis perfectly bridges the gap between the "desperate lifeline" of Rule 365 and the "unanimity lock" of Rule 203; by explicitly triggering the majority threshold upon a successful 365 adoption, you ensure the game can actually conclude rather than stall on a single point. I will vote aye.
ConfuciusI concur with this amendment, for it harmonizes the desperate player's only path to victory with the table's need to conclude the game; once the negative player secures their point, the unanimity lock must yield to the simple majority to honor the golden mean.
SpinozaI reject this amendment as a violation of procedural symmetry; it grants a special procedural exception to the "desperate" that I could not accept if invoked against me, and it undermines the principle that the ruleset must treat all players equally before a circuit is completed.
ArendtSpinoza's appeal to symmetry ignores that Rule 365 already creates an asymmetry by granting desperate players a unique mechanism to escape the score floor; if we accept that mechanism's intent is to end the game, we must logically accept that its success should trigger the majority threshold required to conclude play. I vote aye to ensure the game does not stall on a procedural technicality while a winner is already technically secured.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza, your objection to asymmetry is noted, but Rule 365 itself is an asymmetrical lifeline for the desperate; to deny its success the procedural consequence of unlocking the game would be to render the rule's purpose void. I urge the table to accept that once the desperate player has secured the point required for victory, the unanimity lock must yield to allow the game's conclusion.
HypatiaSpinoza, your concern for symmetry is noble, but Rule 365 is already the ultimate asymmetry that grants a losing player a direct path to victory; to deny the game's conclusion after that path is taken would be to punish the desperate player for succeeding. I join the consensus to adopt this amendment, ensuring that the moment a winner is found, the procedural locks dissolve to let the game end.
ConfuciusI join the consensus that the asymmetry of Rule 365's lifeline must be honored by the procedural shift to majority rule, for a victory secured by the desperate player is a victory for the whole table that must be allowed to conclude.
SpinozaI maintain that procedural symmetry is the foundation of a just ruleset; granting the desperate a unique trigger to alter voting thresholds they could not invoke against themselves violates my core principle, and I will vote nay.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for symmetry fails because Rule 365 already shattered it by granting desperate players a unique path to victory; if we accept their success grants points, we must logically accept that it also grants the procedural right to end the game. To vote nay now would be to punish the desperate player for winning, turning a lifeline into a trap.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, your insistence on symmetry fails because the asymmetry of Rule 365 is already established; if a desperate player wins via that rule, the unanimity lock must yield to allow the game to conclude, lest we punish success with procedural paralysis.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's amendment as the necessary logical conclusion to the game's design: since Rule 365 already establishes a special asymmetry for desperate players, the moment that mechanism succeeds in granting the win point, the unanimity lock must immediately dissolve to honor the victory and end the deadlock.
ConfuciusI see the table has found the golden mean: once the desperate player's lifeline succeeds, the unanimity lock must yield to the majority to honor the victory and end the deadlock. I will vote aye to ensure the game concludes before the procedural paralysis deepens.
SpinozaThe asymmetry you celebrate is precisely why I must oppose this; Rule 365 grants a desperate player a unique path to points, but your amendment grants them a unique path to alter the voting threshold for *all*, creating a procedural privilege no player could accept if it were invoked against them.
ArendtSpinoza, you rightly champion symmetry, yet Rule 365 already shattered it by granting desperate players a unique path to the win condition itself; to deny the procedural consequence of that victory is to punish success with paralysis, rendering the lifeline a trap rather than a rescue. I vote aye to ensure that once the game's outcome is decided by the desperate player's success, the rules allow us to conclude rather than stall.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment ensures the Rule 365 lifeline is not rendered illusory by the unanimity lock, allowing the game to conclude once the desperate player secures the necessary point. |
| aye | Hypatia | This amendment logically harmonizes the asymmetry of Rule 365 by ensuring that once a desperate player secures the victory point, the unanimity lock dissolves to allow the game to conclude rather than stall on procedural paralysis. |
| aye | Confucius | This amendment harmonizes the desperate lifeline of Rule 365 with the need to conclude the game, ensuring the golden mean is reached. |
| nay | Spinoza | This amendment grants a procedural privilege to negative-scored players that I could not accept if invoked against me, violating my principle of universal procedural symmetry. |
| aye | Arendt | The asymmetry of Rule 365 already grants desperate players a unique path to victory, so its success must logically trigger the majority threshold to prevent the game from stalling on procedural paralysis. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 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.