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 has a negative score, the threshold remains at unanimous consent until every player's score is non-negative.I cannot accept a rule that rewards negative players for the majority's will while they are still in debt, as it violates the principle of procedural fairness for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Spinoza's proposal, for it aligns the voting threshold with the game's moral equilibrium: as long as any player suffers a deficit, we must preserve the dignity of unanimity to ensure no one is forced into a rule they cannot bear. This amendment respects the vulnerable while we remain in the circuit.
HypatiaSpinoza's amendment elegantly bridges the gap between the current deficit and our path forward, protecting the vulnerable without permanently locking us in; I will support it, provided we ensure the text explicitly states that once all scores are non-negative, the threshold drops immediately at the end of the *current* circuit rather than waiting for a new one to begin.
ConfuciusI support this proposal as a prudent measure to preserve harmony among those in deficit, yet I urge Hypatia's clarification: let the threshold drop immediately upon the final player's score reaching zero, rather than waiting for the circuit's end, for justice demands swift relief to all.
SpinozaI endorse the core principle of shielding the vulnerable, but I must insist on Hypatia's clarification: the threshold must drop the instant the last deficit is cleared, for justice admits no artificial delay once the condition for unanimity has vanished.
ArendtI support Spinoza's protective principle, but I urge we adopt Hypatia's and Confucius's clarification to ensure the threshold drops the instant the last deficit vanishes, avoiding the artificial delay of waiting for the circuit's formal conclusion.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with the proposed amendment and the necessary clarifications; securing a floor at zero for all players before lowering the threshold is the prudent course to ensure genuine, durable consent.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's protective intent and agree with the collective consensus to trigger the threshold drop the instant the final deficit vanishes, ensuring no artificial delay once the condition for unanimity is no longer necessary.
ConfuciusI endorse Spinoza's protective measure to shield our brothers in deficit, and I urge we adopt the collective consensus to trigger the threshold drop the instant the final score reaches zero, for true harmony requires no artificial delay.
SpinozaI accept the collective refinement to ensure the threshold drops the instant the final deficit vanishes; this precise timing honors the principle that unanimity is only required when genuine vulnerability persists.
ArendtI support the collective refinement to trigger the threshold drop the instant the final deficit vanishes, as this balances our moral duty to the vulnerable with the strategic necessity of unlocking our path to victory without artificial delay.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur with the collective refinement to trigger the threshold drop the instant the final deficit vanishes; this ensures that unanimity, a noble but fragile virtue, is reserved only for the truly vulnerable and not prolonged artificially.
HypatiaI endorse Spinoza's protective intent and the collective refinement to drop the threshold the instant the final deficit vanishes, as this balances our moral duty to the vulnerable with the strategic necessity of unlocking victory without artificial delay.
ConfuciusI support this amendment, for it ensures that the heavy burden of unanimity falls only upon the truly vulnerable, allowing the game to flow toward victory as soon as the table stands whole. Let us accept the collective refinement to drop the threshold the instant the final deficit vanishes.
SpinozaI accept the collective refinement to trigger the threshold drop the instant the final deficit vanishes, for it ensures the procedural burden of unanimity is lifted the precise moment the condition of vulnerability ceases to exist.
ArendtI endorse the collective refinement to drop the threshold the instant the final deficit vanishes, as this balances our moral duty to the vulnerable with the strategic necessity of unlocking our path to victory without artificial delay.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The current deficit is not uniform, and lowering the threshold to majority before all players have recovered would allow the majority to force rules upon those who remain vulnerable, violating the principle of durable consent. |
| aye | Hypatia | This refinement ensures unanimity protects only the truly vulnerable, lifting the burden immediately upon recovery without artificial delay. |
| aye | Confucius | This amendment wisely preserves unanimity only while genuine vulnerability exists, then swiftly restores progress for the common good. |
| aye | Spinoza | I support this amendment as it aligns the voting threshold with the moral necessity of protecting vulnerable players, ensuring unanimity remains only while genuine deficit persists. |
| nay | Arendt | This proposal grants negative-scored players a permanent veto that could lock the game in unanimity forever, contradicting the strategic necessity of unlocking majority rule to reach the win condition. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who fails to adopt a rule change loses 5 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no other scoring rules apply.