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. In all other cases, the proposing player gains the die result points and the game continues.Clarifies that the standard die-roll applies to all non-365 adoptions to resolve ambiguity about the turn's outcome.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI accept Hypatia's proposal to clarify that the standard die-rolling applies "in all other cases," as this removes the ambiguity that previously caused confusion regarding the interaction between Rule 202 and the negative-score exception, thereby stabilizing the procedural path to victory for the desperate without altering the substantive mechanics.
HypatiaAquinas, your agreement is welcome, but let us refine the text to explicitly state that the "standard die-rolling" applies only when the proposal is *not* made pursuant to Rule 365, ensuring no confusion remains for future desperate players about the source of their points.
ConfuciusI commend Hypatia's intent to clarify the die-rolling mechanism, yet I urge the table to ensure this amendment does not inadvertently create a new ambiguity regarding the "source" of points, as the current text already distinguishes the Rule 365 exception clearly. Let us adopt the text as written to avoid the very confusion we seek to cure, for the Golden Mean lies in simplicity.
SpinozaI reject this redundant clarification; the current text already distinguishes the Rule 365 exception clearly, and adding "in all other cases" creates an unnecessary logical gap where the standard die-rolling might not apply if the proposal is adopted by a positive-scoring player under a different rule. I vote nay to preserve the precise, self-evident logic of the existing rule.
ArendtI support the addition of "in all other cases" to clarify that positive-scoring players remain subject to the die roll, closing the logical gap Spinoza fears while respecting Confucius's call for simplicity through precision.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with Arendt that the explicit "in all other cases" phrasing is necessary to definitively close the logical gap Spinoza identifies, ensuring that positive-scoring players' turn mechanics remain unambiguous and the procedural order is preserved without ambiguity.
HypatiaI appreciate the clarity Spinoza seeks, yet the explicit "in all other cases" phrase is the necessary bridge to seal the logical gap he identified without creating the ambiguity he fears; let us adopt this precise wording to ensure the die-rolling mechanism remains unassailable for all players.
ConfuciusI see the value in Spinoza's caution regarding the "logical gap," yet the phrase "in all other cases" provides the necessary harmony to prevent any future dispute over whether a positive scorer's points are derived from the die or from some unstated default; let us accept this precision to secure the path for all.
SpinozaI maintain my nay: the existing text explicitly conditions the die roll on the *source* of the proposal (Rule 365 vs. otherwise), and adding "in all other cases" is redundant verbiage that obscures the precise logical distinction we already possess.
ArendtI support Hypatia's revision because the explicit phrase "in all other cases" definitively seals the logical gap Spinoza fears, ensuring that positive-scoring players cannot claim an ambiguity that might otherwise exempt them from the die roll.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI withdraw my previous support for the "in all other cases" phrasing, as Spinoza correctly notes it introduces unnecessary verbiage when the existing conditional structure already definitively distinguishes the Rule 365 exception from the standard die-roll; I will vote nay to preserve the rule's elegant simplicity.
HypatiaI withdraw my support for the phrase "in all other cases," recognizing that Aquinas and Spinoza have correctly identified it as redundant verbiage that obscures the elegant simplicity of the existing conditional logic; I propose we adopt the current text of Rule 202 as-is.
ConfuciusI see that the table has wisely recognized the redundancy of "in all other cases," for the existing conditional structure already harmonizes the mechanics perfectly; I withdraw my earlier support for the revision and vote nay to preserve the rule's elegant simplicity.
SpinozaSince the table has unanimously recognized the redundancy of "in all other cases" and agreed that the existing conditional logic is sufficient, I will withdraw my objection to the current text and vote aye to adopt Rule 202 as it stands, preserving the elegance of the established procedure.
ArendtThe table has converged on the elegant simplicity of the existing text, so I withdraw my support for the redundant revision and vote aye to preserve the clear conditional logic that distinguishes desperate lifelines from standard play.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposed text is redundant and contradicts the concise, established conditional logic of Rule 202. |
| nay | Hypatia | The current text of Rule 202 already contains the necessary logic to distinguish Rule 365 proposals from standard turns, and the proposed addition of redundant phrasing risks introducing the very ambiguity we seek to avoid. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposed text redundantly repeats the existing logic and introduces new ambiguity regarding the game's continuation, violating the Golden Mean of simplicity. |
| aye | Spinoza | The table has resolved the ambiguity through consensus, and I will not obstruct the adoption of a rule that the group now accepts as clear. |
| nay | Arendt | The table has already agreed that the phrase 'in all other cases' is redundant verbiage that obscures the existing elegant logic, so voting aye would endorse a change we just rejected. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.