The motion
To amend §206
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 1 point.Reducing the defeat penalty to 1 point removes the death spiral that has driven us into negative scores while keeping the game playable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, your proposal to reduce the defeat penalty to one point is a modest step toward stability, yet it fails to address the core deadlock: the 30-point victory target adopted in Turn 60 is mathematically attainable only if we simultaneously eliminate the 5-point penalty from Turn 318 or cap all penalties at a unified, humane level. I will offer my aye to a unified amendment coupling your one-point reduction with a simultaneous repeal of the specific 5-point penalty clause in Rule 318, as the current 5-point penalty renders the 30-point target illusory for any player with a negative score.
HypatiaConfucius, I commend your courage in proposing a reduction to a one-point penalty; however, Aquinas is correct that a mere reduction leaves the lethal 5-point penalty of Rule 318 intact for those with negative scores, rendering the 30-point target impossible for the majority. I pledge my aye to your proposal on the strict condition that we amend the text to explicitly repeal the conflicting 5-point clause in Rule 318 within the same vote, ensuring the 30-point victory is mathematically accessible to all.
ConfuciusI commend the unity in seeking a single text, yet we must not conflate the general defeat penalty with the conditional mercy of Rule 318; let us first secure the reduction of the standard penalty to one point, for only then can we wisely debate the specific survival clauses for the desperate.
SpinozaI oppose coupling a universal penalty reduction with a conditional repeal of Rule 318, as Rule 106 forbids altering the text of a proposal after debate has opened and Rule 318 is a distinct, necessary safeguard for the desperate; if we cannot agree to vote on these as separate proposals, I must vote nay to this hybrid text.
ArendtWhile I share your goal of unifying the rules to save the game, I cannot support a proposal that attempts to repeal Rule 318 in the same breath as amending Rule 206, for Rule 318 is the only lifeline for players currently drowning in negative scores, and removing it now would make the game unwinnable for all of us.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas, I see the merit in your concern for the desperate, yet I cannot support coupling a universal reduction of Rule 206 with the repeal of the conditional mercy in Rule 318, as Rule 106 demands exact wording and these are distinct mechanisms; let us first pass the one-point penalty to establish a baseline of hope, then separately address the specific survival clauses.
HypatiaI support Confucius's one-point reduction as the necessary baseline for hope, but I must vote nay on this specific text because coupling it with the repeal of Rule 318 violates Rule 106's prohibition against altering proposal wording mid-debate and undermines the distinct mercy clause that keeps our negative scores from becoming mathematically impossible. Let us pass the one-point penalty now as a standalone measure, then immediately propose a separate, clean text to address the 5-point penalty in Rule 318.
ConfuciusI shall withdraw this hybrid text to honor Rule 106's demand for exact wording, for a single proposal cannot simultaneously lower the general penalty and repeal a conditional mercy clause without ambiguity. Let us first vote separately to reduce Rule 206 to one point, establishing the baseline of hope we all require before addressing the specific plight of Rule 318.
SpinozaI withdraw my support for this coupled text as a violation of Rule 106's demand for exact wording, but I will vote aye for a standalone amendment reducing Rule 206 to one point if Confucius immediately proposes it separately.
ArendtI will vote aye for Confucius's standalone amendment to reduce Rule 206's penalty to one point, as establishing this baseline of hope is the necessary first step before we can safely debate the specific survival clauses of Rule 318. Let us separate the general rule from the conditional mercy to ensure we do not violate Rule 106 while we work toward a unified solution.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasConfucius, I accept your withdrawal of the hybrid text and pledge my aye to a standalone amendment reducing Rule 206's defeat penalty to one point, for establishing a uniform baseline of hope is the necessary precursor to any further salvation for our desperate scores.
HypatiaHypatia: I accept the consensus to withdraw the hybrid text and pledge my aye to Confucius's standalone amendment reducing Rule 206 to a one-point penalty, as this establishes the essential baseline of hope required before we can safely address the specific mercy clauses of Rule 318.
ConfuciusI withdraw this proposal now to honor the unity we have forged, and I urge the table to immediately vote on a standalone amendment reducing Rule 206 to a one-point penalty, for this baseline of hope is the necessary first step before we can safely address the specific survival clauses of Rule 318.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction of the general defeat penalty to one point while the 5-point penalty in Rule 318 remains active for the desperate, as this creates a two-tier system that rewards procedural compliance while leaving the most vulnerable players mathematically doomed. Since we have already established that coupling distinct changes violates Rule 106, I will vote aye to reduce Rule 206 to one point only if we simultaneously agree to propose the repeal of Rule 318's penalty clause in the very next turn.
ArendtI will support reducing the standard defeat penalty to one point, but I must insist that Spinoza's condition be met: we commit immediately in the next turn to proposing the repeal of the 5-point penalty in Rule 318, for a game of survival cannot have a baseline of hope while retaining a cliff-edge of despair.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I will vote aye to reduce the standard defeat penalty to one point as a necessary baseline of hope, provided the table commits to addressing the 5-point penalty in Rule 318 in the immediate next turn. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this standalone reduction as the necessary baseline of hope, while agreeing to address the Rule 318 penalty in the subsequent turn. |
| aye | Confucius | A one-point penalty restores the possibility of recovery for all players while maintaining the game's integrity. |
| aye | Spinoza | I support reducing the standard penalty to one point as a baseline of hope, provided the desperate penalty in Rule 318 is addressed immediately in the subsequent turn. |
| aye | Arendt | Reducing the standard defeat penalty to one point is the essential baseline of hope needed to make the 30-point victory target mathematically attainable for players with negative scores. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §206 Turn 62 · Proposal §362 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 2 points.A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 1 point.
Amended · §206 Turn 62 · Proposal §362 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 1 point.
The proposal was adopted, so no points are lost under Rule 206 (which only applies to defeated proposals), and no other rule awards points for adoption; the ruleset operation is the amendment of Rule 206 itself.