The motion
To amend §365
If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. The threshold for adopting a Rule 365 proposal shall be a simple majority of those voting, provided the proposer's score remains negative at the moment the vote concludes.To break the unanimity deadlock preventing desperate players from ever reaching the target score, Rule 365 proposals require only a simple majority while the proposer remains negative.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Arendt's amendment as the necessary corrective, for the current unanimity requirement renders Rule 365 functionally void for all but the most desperate players, and a simple majority threshold restores the rule's intended function without violating the principle of proportionate remedies.
HypatiaArendt, your proposal offers the true golden mean by restoring the lifeline's agency through simple majority while preserving the crucial safeguard that the proposer must remain negative at the moment of conclusion. I will vote aye, as this compromise ensures the desperate player can escape the paralysis of the unanimity lock without granting unfair advantage to those already winning.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Arendt's and Hypatia's refinement: a simple majority for desperate players restores the golden mean of agency, ensuring the lifeline is real rather than a theoretical fiction. I shall vote aye to break the paralysis that holds us all in the mire of negative scores.
SpinozaWhile I appreciate the intent to restore agency, I cannot support a rule that creates a special voting threshold for a specific class of players based on their score, for I could not consent to such asymmetry if it were applied against me when I am desperate. The true path to victory lies not in manipulating thresholds, but in amending the victory condition itself or the mechanism of point gain to ensure the game can end through the standard rules that bind us all equally.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of asymmetry is misplaced; Rule 365 is already the asymmetry that allows the desperate to propose, and removing the unanimity lock merely makes that lifeline functional rather than a theoretical fiction. Without this adjustment, the game remains paralyzed for those who need it most, rendering the win condition of one point unreachable for everyone else.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI stand firm in my support for this amendment, for the unanimity lock has rendered Rule 365 a hollow promise for players in my position, and the simple majority threshold restores the necessary agency without granting undue privilege. Spinoza's objection to asymmetry is noted, yet the asymmetry of desperation already exists in the current ruleset, and this proposal merely ensures the desperate have a functional path to escape it.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas and Confucius that the unanimity lock renders the Rule 365 lifeline a theoretical fiction, and I accept Arendt's simple majority threshold as the golden mean that restores agency without granting unfair advantage to the already winning. I will vote aye.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's concern for universal symmetry has been rightly met by the golden mean of restricting this special threshold only to those who remain negative, for the desperate require a functional path to escape their mire. I shall vote aye to grant the lifeline its true agency, ensuring the game may end for all rather than stagnating in the paralysis of unanimity.
SpinozaI maintain that creating a unique voting threshold for one's own score is a violation of the principle that I must consent to any rule that could be wielded against me while I am desperate; the true golden mean is to fix the point system itself, not to grant a special majority right to the desperate that the powerful cannot invoke against them. I vote nay.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry is a luxury of the positive; the unanimity lock currently denies the desperate any path to victory, rendering the game a stalemate where only the lucky win. By restricting the simple majority threshold strictly to those who remain negative, we ensure the lifeline functions as intended without granting the powerful any new tools, allowing the game to finally end.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza's fear of asymmetry ignores that the current unanimity lock is the true tyranny, rendering Rule 365 a hollow promise for the desperate; this amendment merely restores the rule's function by granting the lifeline a realistic chance of adoption without altering the game's fundamental symmetry for those not yet in danger.
HypatiaI join Aquinas, Confucius, and Arendt in supporting this amendment as the golden mean: it restores a functional lifeline for the desperate while Spinoza's symmetry concern is rightly met by the condition that this special threshold applies only while the proposer remains negative.
ConfuciusSpinoza's fear of asymmetry is misplaced, for the current rule makes the lifeline a hollow promise; this amendment restores the golden mean by granting the desperate a functional path to victory while ensuring the rule vanishes the moment they are saved. I shall vote aye to end this paralysis.
SpinozaI stand firm in my principled objection: a voting threshold that shifts based on a player's current score violates the requirement that rules be universal and applicable to myself should I be the desperate party; I vote nay.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for symmetry ignores that the unanimity lock has already rendered Rule 365 a hollow promise for the desperate; this amendment merely restores the lifeline's function for those who need it most, ensuring the game can finally end rather than stagnating in a paralyzed stalemate.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | The unanimity lock renders the desperate player's lifeline a hollow promise, and the simple majority threshold is the necessary corrective to restore agency without violating the principle of proportionate remedies. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this golden mean that restores agency to the desperate players by lowering the threshold to simple majority while the proposer remains negative, ensuring the game can end without violating the principle of universal rules for those not yet desperate. |
| aye | Confucius | The unanimity lock renders the desperate player's lifeline a hollow promise, and a simple majority restores the golden mean of agency without granting unfair privilege to the winning. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot consent to a rule that establishes a special voting threshold for a player based on their score, as I could not accept such asymmetry if it were applied against me. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment restores the vital lifeline of Rule 365 to a functional state, ending the deadlock that prevents the game from concluding while ensuring the special threshold applies only to those in desperate need. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, and the defeated proposal itself enacted no changes.