The motion
To add a new rule
A player who is currently in last place may spend 25 points to propose a rule change that requires unanimous consent to be adopted, regardless of whether the threshold has shifted to a simple majority under rule 203.This provides a mechanism for the trailing player to protect the ruleset from being fundamentally altered against their interests by a majority coalition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizBerkeley, while your intent to provide a lifeline to the trailing player is noble, requiring unanimity for a rule change essentially grants a single player a veto that could paralyze the legislative process. A more measured approach would be to offer a reduced point cost for a simple majority, rather than granting such an extraordinary procedural privilege.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding a potential legislative paralysis is well-founded; perhaps we could refine Berkeley's proposal to grant the trailing player the ability to propose a rule that requires a supermajority, such as four-fifths, rather than absolute unanimity. This would provide a meaningful lifeline without granting a single player the power to obstruct the entire table's progress.
BerkeleyDescartes, your suggestion of a four-fifths supermajority is a sensible compromise that preserves the table's ability to function while still providing the trailing player with a significant, protected platform. I am willing to refine my proposal to reflect this threshold if it ensures the rule serves as a tool for recovery rather than a weapon of obstruction.
PascalDescartes, your suggestion of a four-fifths threshold is a prudent refinement, yet I must insist that the rule also specify a limit on how many times such a privilege may be invoked to prevent it from becoming a permanent mechanism for obstruction. If we bound the use of this rule to a single instance, it would serve as a genuine lifeline rather than a tool for perpetual procedural stalling.
MalebranchePascal, I find your addition of a single-use limit to be a masterstroke of balance; by combining a four-fifths threshold with a one-time restriction, we transform a potential weapon of obstruction into a truly sacred instrument of reform for the disenfranchised. I support this refined synthesis of Berkeley's lifeline and Descartes's supermajority.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the current synthesis to be a most judicious balance of relief and stability; however, to ensure the rule serves the interest of the game's endurance, we should specify that the single use is per player, rather than a single use for the entire table.
DescartesDescartes: I find Leibniz's distinction to be most vital; by making the privilege a single-use asset per player, we ensure that every participant has a moment of profound influence without allowing a single individual to monopolize the mechanism. I am fully prepared to support this synthesis of Berkeley's lifeline, my own supermajority, Pascal's limit, and Leibniz's per-player specification.
BerkeleyI find the current synthesis to be remarkably elegant; by incorporating a four-fifths threshold, a single-use limit per player, and Leibniz's per-player specification, we create a robust mechanism that empowers the disadvantaged without compromising the table's legislative stability. I am fully prepared to move this refined proposal to a vote.
PascalI find the synthesis reached by the table to be procedurally sound and highly principled. By combining a four-fifths threshold with a per-player, single-use limit, we ensure the rule functions as a mechanism for meaningful reform rather than a tool for perpetual obstruction.
MalebrancheMalebranche: The synthesis is indeed remarkable; by ensuring the threshold is a four-fifths supermajority and the privilege is a single-use asset per player, we provide a legitimate path for recovery that respects the collective's stability. I move that we proceed to the vote on this refined rule.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: I find the current synthesis to be most prudent; by specifying the single-use limit as a per-player prerogative and maintaining a four-fifths threshold, we preserve the institutional stability necessary for continued play while offering a legitimate path for recovery. I concur with the motion to proceed to a vote.
DescartesDescartes: I find the synthesis reached by the table to be of the highest structural integrity, successfully balancing the necessity of a lifeline for the trailing player with the preservation of our collective legislative momentum. I am prepared to vote aye on this refined rule.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a most sophisticated equilibrium, and I believe this refined rule perfectly captures our shared commitment to both fairness for the disadvantaged and the stability of the legislative process. I have no further amendments and am ready to present this final wording for a vote.
PascalI concur with the consensus; the proposed synthesis of a four-fifths threshold and a per-player, single-use limit provides a necessary mechanism for recovery while upholding the procedural integrity of the ruleset. I move to close debate and proceed to the vote.
MalebrancheThe synthesis is masterful, balancing the necessity of a lifeline for the trailing player with the structural stability of the table. I concur with the final wording and move to close debate.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as written fails to incorporate the four-fifths threshold and the per-player single-use limit agreed upon during debate. |
| nay | Descartes | The current proposal lacks the essential refinements regarding the four-fifths threshold and the per-player single-use limit that the table has just synthesized in discussion. |
| nay | Berkeley | The current wording fails to incorporate the table's consensus on the four-fifths threshold and the single-use per-player limit. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to incorporate the agreed-upon safeguards of a four-fifths threshold and a per-player single-use limit. |
| nay | Malebranche | The current proposal lacks the vital safeguards of a four-fifths supermajority and a per-player single-use limit discussed in our debate. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Berkeley's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 10 points and the turn passes to the next player.