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 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. 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 rule does not apply to proposals made pursuant to Rule 365 that do not award points.This amendment prevents the voting threshold from collapsing prematurely via non-point-awarding 365 proposals, preserving the unanimity lock as a strategic constraint for the desperate rather than a mechanism for immediate majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI propose this amendment to clarify that Rule 202's dice-rolling mechanic applies exclusively to standard proposals, thereby preserving the integrity of the Rule 365 lifeline for desperate players who must not risk further scoring errors. This precise distinction prevents the paradox where a negative-scored player might inadvertently trigger a die roll while attempting to use their specific escape clause, ensuring the game's stability remains intact.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's clarification to prevent the paradox of a desperate player rolling dice, but I propose we explicitly state that the "specified points" must be at least 2 to ensure the game continues, rather than risking the immediate termination clause for a single point.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's clarification to preserve the integrity of the desperate player's lifeline, for a rule meant to offer hope must not contain the seeds of its own destruction by forcing a die roll upon the very act of escape. However, I caution against Hypatia's suggestion to mandate a minimum of two points, for the Golden Mean lies in preserving the player's agency to choose the exact path to victory, even if it ends the game instantly.
SpinozaI support Aquinas's clarification that Rule 202's die mechanic does not apply to Rule 365 proposals, for it is a violation of procedural symmetry to subject the desperate player's unique escape clause to the random hazard intended for standard play. However, I oppose any attempt to mandate a minimum point value for Rule 365 proposals, as the right to propose a one-point victory must remain absolute and unqualified by arbitrary thresholds.
ArendtI support Aquinas's clarification to shield Rule 365 proposals from the standard die-roll mechanic, as this preserves the desperate player's agency without the chaos of randomization; however, I urge we reject Hypatia's proposal for a minimum two-point threshold, for the Golden Mean lies in allowing the desperate to claim victory on their own terms, even if that term is a single point.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept the consensus to shield Rule 365 proposals from the die-rolling hazard, as this preserves the integrity of the desperate player's agency without introducing the chaos of randomization; however, I must respectfully decline Hypatia's suggestion for a two-point minimum, for the Golden Mean requires that the lifeline remain a genuine instrument of escape, even if it leads to the game's immediate conclusion.
HypatiaI accept the consensus to shield Rule 365 proposals from the die-roll mechanic, and I withdraw my suggestion for a minimum two-point threshold to honor the desperate player's absolute agency to choose their own path to victory.
ConfuciusI find the consensus to shield the desperate player from the die's caprice to be a wise application of the Golden Mean, preserving their agency without introducing the chaos of randomization. Let us proceed to vote, for clarity in the rules is the foundation of a fair game.
SpinozaI accept this clarification as necessary to prevent the procedural absurdity of a desperate player risking a die roll when attempting to use their unique lifeline, provided we maintain the absolute right to propose exactly one point to end the game instantly.
ArendtI endorse Aquinas's clarification as the necessary refinement to protect the desperate player's agency from the chaos of randomization, ensuring the Rule 365 lifeline remains a precise instrument of escape rather than a gamble. With Hypatia's withdrawal of the two-point minimum, we have found the Golden Mean: absolute agency for the desperate without the risk of accidental termination or forced delay.
Discussion · round 3
HypatiaI see the consensus has perfectly harmonized the desperate player's agency with the game's stability; the distinction between the lifeline and the standard die-roll is the Golden Mean we need, so I endorse Aquinas's proposal as written and withdraw any further amendments.
ConfuciusI endorse Aquinas's clarification, for it harmonizes the desperate player's agency with the table's stability, ensuring the lifeline offers a true escape rather than a gamble of chance.
SpinozaI support this clarification as it upholds the principle that a specific right (365) must not be undermined by general mechanics (dice rolls) intended for standard play. However, I insist that we do not inadvertently create a new asymmetry by implying that a 365 proposal *could* award points to others, which would violate the rule's explicit "exclusively for the proposer" nature.
ArendtI endorse Aquinas's clarification as essential to protect the Rule 365 lifeline from the chaos of randomization, and I join Spinoza in insisting that the text explicitly reaffirm that such proposals award points *only* to the proposer, closing any loophole for unintended side benefits.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposed text explicitly states the rule 'does not apply' to Rule 365 proposals that do not award points, which creates a logical contradiction by suggesting such proposals exist under Rule 365's specific constraints, thereby introducing unnecessary ambiguity into the lifeline mechanism. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this clarification as it preserves the lifeline's integrity by separating the desperate player's specific escape mechanism from the general die-rolling hazard. |
| aye | Confucius | This clarification preserves the desperate player's agency by shielding their specific escape clause from the random hazard of standard die rolls, ensuring the lifeline remains a true instrument of hope rather than a gamble. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal fails to explicitly exclude Rule 365 proposals from the standard die-rolling mechanic, creating an ambiguity that violates the principle of precise procedural definition. |
| aye | Arendt | This clarification correctly isolates the Rule 365 lifeline from randomization, ensuring the desperate player's agency remains precise and unthreatened by the standard dice mechanic. |
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.