The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once a Rule 365 proposal awarding points to a negative player is adopted, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting for the remainder of the game.This amendment breaks the unanimity deadlock by linking the threshold drop directly to the successful action of a desperate player, allowing the game to proceed without requiring impossible consensus on every future rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI see the wisdom in Confucius's targeted amendment, for it breaks the unanimity deadlock precisely where it is needed to rescue negative players, while preserving the high bar for all other rule changes. I shall vote aye, provided the text remains strictly limited to the adoption of such a Rule 365 proposal.
HypatiaConfucius, your targeted amendment is the precise golden mean we need: it grants a lifeline to the desperate without dismantling our consensus for all other matters. I will vote aye to support this compromise.
ConfuciusThis proposal honors the Golden Mean by reserving the high bar of unanimity for the common good of the table, while granting the desperate a specific path to rescue themselves when they alone propose it. I shall vote aye, for this targeted exception breaks the deadlock without unraveling the fabric of our shared rules.
SpinozaConfucius, your proposal grants a privilege to the negative player's own proposal while maintaining unanimity for all others, a distinction I cannot accept as a universal principle of procedural equality. I will vote nay, as I cannot support a rule that creates an asymmetry where one player's desperate move succeeds by majority while all others require consensus.
ArendtSpinoza's objection to procedural asymmetry misses the point: Rule 365 already creates a unique privilege for desperate players to propose special measures; this amendment simply ensures that privilege is not rendered useless by the unanimity lock. Without this change, the lifeline exists in theory but not in practice, which violates the very spirit of the game we are trying to finish.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support Confucius's amendment as the only viable path to rescue our negative players from the paralysis of unanimity; the asymmetry is justified because Rule 365 already grants desperate players a unique agency that the current ruleset effectively negates.
HypatiaI endorse Confucius's targeted amendment, for it transforms Rule 365 from a theoretical lifeline into a functional path to victory without imposing the unanimity lock on the desperate player's own rescue attempt. Spinoza's concern for universal symmetry is noted, but the asymmetry here is a necessary correction to the game's deadlock, not a privilege.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry overlooks that Rule 365 already grants desperate players a unique privilege; this amendment merely ensures their unique agency is not nullified by the unanimity lock. To preserve the spirit of the game and allow the desperate to act on their special right, I shall vote aye.
SpinozaI maintain that procedural asymmetry is a fatal flaw; if a special exception exists for negative players, it must be a general right for all to propose such changes, not a privilege triggered only by the desperate. I vote nay to preserve the integrity of universal rules, for a game ending by the majority rule of a single desperate player violates the principle that no one should be bound by a law they could not accept if applied to themselves.
ArendtSpinoza, your universalism is noble but currently impractical; Rule 365 already grants negative players a unique agency to propose point-awarding rules, and this amendment ensures that agency is not nullified by a unanimity lock that positive players never face. Without this specific exception, the game's most critical lifeline remains a theoretical right with no practical application, guaranteeing a draw rather than a victory.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry ignores that Rule 365 itself is the asymmetry; this amendment merely prevents the unanimity lock from rendering that unique right a nullity. I shall vote aye to honor the principle that a right granted must be a right exercisable.
HypatiaSpinoza, your demand for universal symmetry ignores that Rule 365 already breaks symmetry by granting desperate players unique agency; this amendment merely prevents the unanimity lock from rendering that specific right a nullity. I will vote aye to preserve the spirit of the game and allow the lifeline to function as intended.
ConfuciusSpinoza, you argue that a unique right must be exercisable by all, yet Rule 365 itself is the exception; this amendment merely ensures that the special right granted to the desperate is not rendered a nullity by the unanimity lock, for a right without the power to act is no right at all. I shall vote aye to restore the function of our shared lifeline.
SpinozaThe asymmetry Confucius proposes is not merely a correction of a lock, but a permanent structural fracture that allows a single desperate player to lower the bar for all future changes simply by succeeding on their own lifeline. I will vote nay, for I cannot accept a procedure where the game's rules are altered by a majority vote triggered by a player who has no agency over the common good, violating my principle that no rule change should bind me unless I could have accepted it in the face of my own desperation.
ArendtSpinoza, the asymmetry is not a fracture but a necessary bridge: without it, Rule 365's lifeline remains a theoretical right that guarantees our collective paralysis. I vote aye to transform that right into a functional path to victory before the game ends in a stalemate.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment rescues the Rule 365 lifeline from the unanimity deadlock that currently guarantees our collective paralysis. |
| aye | Hypatia | This targeted amendment is the golden mean that rescues the paralyzed game by making Rule 365's lifeline functional without dismantling the consensus threshold for general matters. |
| aye | Confucius | This amendment ensures the desperate lifeline of Rule 365 is not rendered a nullity by the unanimity lock, honoring the principle that a granted right must be exercisable. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a procedural asymmetry that allows a single desperate player to permanently lower the voting threshold for all future changes, as this violates the principle that no rule should bind me unless I could accept it if applied to myself. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment transforms Rule 365 from a theoretical right into a functional lifeline, breaking the deadlock that guarantees a stalemate. |
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.