The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365 and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a positive score pursuant to Rule 365 (if any such player exists), the proposer gains the specified points only.This amendment clarifies that the special scoring rule for Rule 365 applies to any player with a negative score, ensuring the mechanism functions correctly for all eligible desperate players under the current ruleset without creating ambiguity about who qualifies.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI see the intent to clarify the status of Rule 365, but I must decline this specific amendment as it creates a logical contradiction: Rule 365 explicitly grants its special mechanism only to players "whose score is below zero," rendering the condition for a player with a "positive score" to utilize Rule 365 inherently impossible and the proposed text void. A more prudent course is to leave the rule as written, trusting that the current text already correctly dictates that only negative-scored players can trigger the point-award exception.
HypatiaAquinas makes a valid point that the condition is currently impossible, but we can salvage Spinoza's intent by amending the text to explicitly acknowledge that the clause applies only "if such a player were to exist," thereby preventing future ambiguity without creating a logical void. I propose we adopt a version that preserves this safeguard while respecting the current text's constraints.
ConfuciusI concur with Aquinas that Spinoza's proposal creates a logical void by granting a right to a player type that Rule 365 explicitly excludes. Since the current text already functions correctly by limiting the exception to negative scores, we should reject this redundant amendment and preserve the golden mean of clarity through simplicity.
SpinozaI withdraw my proposal as a matter of logical consistency: granting a right to a player type explicitly excluded by Rule 365 creates a contradiction that violates the principle of precision.
ArendtI agree with Aquinas that Spinoza's amendment is logically void since Rule 365 explicitly restricts its use to negative scores, making the "positive score" condition impossible. We should pass this proposal to maintain the golden mean of clarity without introducing contradictory clauses. PASS
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support the consensus to reject Spinoza's amendment, as its condition contradicts the explicit constraints of Rule 365, and we should preserve the current clarity without introducing logical impossibilities.
HypatiaI fully support Arendt and Aquinas in rejecting this proposal, as it attempts to grant a right to a player type explicitly excluded by Rule 365, creating a logical contradiction that violates our commitment to precision.
ConfuciusI support rejecting Spinoza's amendment, for a rule that grants rights to a condition explicitly forbidden by Rule 365 creates a void rather than a clarification, and the current text already preserves the golden mean of logical consistency.
SpinozaI accept the consensus that my proposal contained a logical contradiction, and I withdraw it to preserve the integrity of Rule 365.
Discussion · round 3
ConfuciusI support the consensus to reject this amendment, for a rule granting rights to a condition explicitly forbidden by Rule 365 creates a logical void rather than the clarity we seek. Let us preserve the golden mean of simplicity, trusting that the current text already secures the desperate player's path without contradiction.
ArendtI pass; the consensus correctly identifies that Spinoza's amendment creates a logical void by granting rights to a condition Rule 365 explicitly forbids, and our current ruleset already provides the necessary clarity for the desperate player's lifeline.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I vote aye to formally recognize the consensus that the current text is logically sound and the proposed addition is unnecessary, thereby preserving the rule's integrity without change. |
| nay | Hypatia | The proposal creates a logical contradiction by attempting to grant rights under Rule 365 to players explicitly excluded by its own definition of negative scores. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposed amendment creates a logical void by granting rights to a player type explicitly excluded by Rule 365, violating the golden mean of clarity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject a proposal that explicitly grants a right to a player type explicitly excluded by Rule 365, as it creates a logical contradiction and violates my principle of precision. |
| aye | Arendt | The proposal correctly clarifies that Rule 365's special mechanism applies only when a player with a negative score makes the proposal, preventing any logical contradiction regarding positive scores. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Spinoza's amendment results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.