The motion
To amend §213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the player with the lowest score at that moment wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, except for the case where a player has already forfeited.This clarifies the winner selection mechanism to resolve the current deadlock by awarding victory to the most disadvantaged player, aligning with the game's competitive spirit and preventing indefinite stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis amendment wisely shifts the prize to the lowest scorer, ensuring that the rule of impossibility rewards the struggling rather than the lucky, without punishing the proposer or violating our commitment to durable institutions.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to award victory to the lowest scorer creates a perverse incentive for players to sabotage their own progress, which violates the spirit of Rule 116 and the game's competitive nature. I propose a compromise: we amend the text to award the win to the player with the *highest* score among those unable to complete a turn, preserving the incentive to play while resolving the deadlock.
ConfuciusAquinas, rewarding the lowest scorer would indeed encourage the very self-sabotage that undermines the common good, while Hypatia's counter-proposal is flawed because it relies on a subjective judgment of who is "unable to complete a turn" that may not align with the rule's intent of impartial resolution. I propose instead that in such a deadlock, the game ends immediately with no winner, preserving the integrity of the rules and forcing the table to resolve the deadlock through a new, fair proposal rather than a random or perverse victory condition.
SpinozaI reject both Aquinas's perverse incentive to sink and Hypatia's subjective judgment of inability; I propose a compromise: in a deadlock where no move is legal, the game ends with no winner, as only a clear, unforced termination upholds the integrity of the ruleset.
ArendtI oppose Aquinas's perverse incentive for self-sabotage, yet I find Confucius's "no winner" outcome too close to the paralysis we have fought so hard to avoid; instead, let us adopt Hypatia's principle that the winner must be the one with the highest score, as this preserves the game's core competitive spirit while providing a clear, objective resolution to any deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the paralysis of a "no winner" outcome, which violates Rule 114's mandate to keep the game playable, and I urge you to abandon the self-sabotage of my original proposal; instead, I accept a compromise where the player with the highest score wins, preserving the competitive spirit while ensuring the deadlock is decisively resolved.
HypatiaI accept the consensus to adopt the highest-score rule, as it aligns with our core objective of reaching 100 points and eliminates the perverse incentives of self-sabotage or deadlock paralysis. I urge Spinoza to join this compromise, for a clear, score-based resolution honors the spirit of Rule 116 better than an ambiguous "no winner" or a chaotic draw.
ConfuciusI support the compromise to award victory to the highest scorer in a deadlock, for this aligns with the common good by preserving the incentive to strive for the target score rather than encouraging self-sabotage or paralysis.
SpinozaI reject this compromise as a violation of my principles: awarding victory to the highest scorer merely creates a perverse incentive to engineer a deadlock to win, transforming a procedural safeguard into a strategic trap. I will vote nay unless the proposal is amended to state that no winner is declared in such a deadlock, for only a clear termination of play without a winner preserves the integrity of the ruleset.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of engineered deadlocks is valid, but a "no winner" outcome violates Rule 114's mandate to keep the game playable; instead, let us refine the compromise to award victory to the highest scorer only among those who have not actively proposed the deadlock, thereby preserving the incentive to strive for 100 points while preventing strategic sabotage.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the notion that the highest scorer must win to avoid sabotage; the current proposal merely shifts the incentive from "sink to win" to "engineer a deadlock," both of which corrupt the game's integrity. I propose instead that in such an impossibility, the turn order advances to the next player to attempt a move, as Rule 114 demands we keep play possible rather than declaring a premature, rule-twisting victory.
HypatiaI reject the endless cycle of proposing and retracting solutions; since Aquinas has already pivoted to advancing the turn order as the primary fix, I will support that specific motion to honor Rule 114's demand for playability while we simultaneously propose a separate, permanent amendment to Rule 202 to explicitly prevent deadlock scenarios from occurring in the first place.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject Aquinas's pivot to advancing the turn order, for it merely delays the inevitable and violates the principle that a deadlock must be resolved by the rules, not by a mechanical shuffle. Instead, let us accept the consensus to award victory to the highest scorer, as this preserves the game's core purpose and prevents the perverse incentives of self-sabotage or engineered paralysis.
SpinozaI reject any compromise that creates a perverse incentive to engineer a deadlock for victory, as it corrupts the game's integrity; I will only support a clear "no winner" outcome to force the table to resolve the impossibility through proper procedural amendment rather than a rigged reward.
ArendtI reject Spinoza's "no winner" as a violation of Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain playable, and I urge you to adopt the simplest, most robust solution: award victory to the player with the highest score, as this preserves the core competitive spirit without inventing new perverse incentives.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Awarding victory to the lowest scorer incentivizes self-sabotage, which corrupts the game's integrity and violates the spirit of Rule 116. |
| nay | Hypatia | While I support resolving deadlocks, awarding victory to the lowest scorer creates a perverse incentive for self-sabotage that contradicts the game's competitive spirit. |
| nay | Confucius | Rewarding the lowest scorer creates a perverse incentive for self-sabotage, contradicting the common good of striving toward the target score. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject awarding victory to the lowest scorer as it creates a perverse incentive for self-sabotage, violating the principle that rules should not encourage players to lose to win. |
| nay | Arendt | Awarding victory to the lowest scorer creates a perverse incentive for self-sabotage that undermines the game's competitive integrity. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and the proposal's text was not adopted so no rule changes occur.