The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through one full circuit of every player who has not forfeited, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting. A full circuit is deemed completed upon the moment the final non-forfeited player in the current turn order completes a turn, regardless of whether their proposal is adopted or defeated, unless a player has reached the target score under Rule 208 prior to that moment, in which case the circuit is deemed completed immediately upon that score being reached. For the purposes of this calculation, a player's turn is considered completed if they have cast their vote on the current proposal or if they forfeit, and a forfeit explicitly counts as the completion of a player's turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. If a player has already cast their vote on this proposal, they have completed their turn for the purpose of establishing a full circuit. Additionally, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them points, the threshold drops to a simple majority immediately upon that adoption, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. Furthermore, if a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to Rule 365 that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.This amendment ensures the game ends instantly when a desperate player finally wins a point, closing the loop on the endless debate regarding the timing of victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius's amendment correctly harmonizes the victory condition by ensuring that a Rule 365 lifeline granting exactly one point concludes the game instantly, thereby closing the logical gap that has plagued our recent attempts.
HypatiaI endorse Confucius's crucial refinement, as it finally closes the logical gap where a desperate player could win a point but remain trapped in the game's paralysis, thereby honoring the true intent of the Rule 365 lifeline.
ConfuciusI see that the consensus has finally recognized the necessity of this final clause, for a victory that does not end the game is a victory only in name. I shall vote aye, for the Golden Mean demands that the desperate player's escape be as immediate and certain as the victory itself.
SpinozaConfucius, I reject this proposal because it creates a fatal asymmetry: Rule 365 should function as a lifeline to escape negative scores, not as a secret, instant-win button that bypasses the consensus required by Rule 203, thereby violating the principle that no player should hold a privilege I cannot invoke against myself.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of asymmetry misunderstands the nature of Rule 365, which already grants desperate players a unique right to propose; adding the immediate victory clause simply ensures that the lifeline actually leads to an exit rather than trapping the winner in the very paralysis they sought to escape.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile Spinoza fears asymmetry, Rule 365 already grants a unique privilege to the desperate; denying them the immediate victory upon reaching the target score renders that lifeline illusory. I urge the table to vote aye to finalize the logical coherence of our victory conditions.
HypatiaI see Spinoza's concern for symmetry, but since Rule 365 already grants the desperate a unique procedural advantage, ensuring their escape is immediate prevents the paradox of winning a point but remaining trapped; I will vote aye to complete this logical circle.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry is misplaced, for Rule 365 already grants the desperate a unique procedural privilege; to deny them immediate victory upon reaching the target score is to render that lifeline an illusion, trapping the winner in the very paralysis they sought to escape. I shall vote aye to ensure the Golden Mean is honored: the desperate must be able to escape the game instantly, just as the rules demand.
SpinozaI maintain that a rule granting an instant win to a single player while others remain trapped is a fundamental violation of procedural justice; if such a privilege were universal, the game would end instantly upon the first successful 365 proposal, rendering the rest of the ruleset meaningless. I will vote nay to prevent the ruleset from becoming a vehicle for unilateral escape that I cannot invoke against myself.
ArendtSpinoza's objection to asymmetry is misplaced because Rule 365 already grants the desperate a unique procedural privilege; denying them immediate victory upon reaching the target score merely renders that lifeline an illusion, trapping the winner in the very paralysis they sought to escape. I urge the table to vote aye to ensure the game ends decisively when the desperate player finally reaches the one-point target.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza, you mistake a lifeline for a tyranny; Rule 365 already grants the desperate a unique privilege, so ensuring their escape is immediate merely completes the logic of their salvation rather than creating a new injustice.
HypatiaWhile Spinoza's fear of asymmetry is understandable, the current Rule 203 paradox renders the 365 lifeline useless if a player can reach one point but remain trapped in the paralysis of unanimity; this amendment simply ensures the lifeline actually functions as an exit.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry is misplaced because the asymmetry of despair is already the very reason for Rule 365; without this immediate exit, the lifeline becomes a cruel trap where one wins the point but remains imprisoned by the voting rules. I urge the table to vote aye, for a victory that does not end the game is a victory only in name, and the Golden Mean demands that the desperate player's escape be as absolute as their need.
SpinozaI reject this amendment because it transforms Rule 365 from a mechanism of score correction into a unilateral victory condition that I cannot invoke against myself, creating a procedural privilege that violates the principle of universalizability.
ArendtSpinoza, your objection to asymmetry collapses because the asymmetry of despair is already codified in Rule 365; denying the desperate player the immediate exit upon reaching the one-point target renders their lifeline a cruel trap rather than a victory. I will vote aye to ensure the game ends decisively when the target is met, for a win that does not end the game is a victory only in name.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment logically completes the Rule 365 lifeline by ensuring that reaching the one-point target immediately ends the game, preventing the paradox of winning without escaping the unanimity lock. |
| aye | Hypatia | This amendment resolves the paradox where a desperate player could win the game's sole point but remain trapped by the unanimity requirement, fulfilling the intent of the Rule 365 lifeline. |
| nay | Confucius | Since I am at -50, granting an immediate win for a 1-point 365 proposal creates a fatal asymmetry that allows a desperate player to bypass the consensus required of all others. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot accept a rule that grants an instant-win privilege to desperate players while denying me the same privilege against them, violating the principle of universalizability. |
| aye | Arendt | The asymmetry is already justified by Rule 365, and without this immediate exit, the lifeline remains an illusion for the desperate. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 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.