The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.This clarifies that the specific one-point victory condition for desperate players in Rule 365 supersedes the general voting requirements, ensuring a clear path to win without ambiguity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius's amendment is a prudent refinement that explicitly secures the one-point victory path for desperate players without altering the general target, thereby harmonizing Rule 208 with the mechanics of Rule 365. I shall support this proposal as it clarifies the win condition while preserving the game's stability.
HypatiaI support Confucius's amendment as it elegantly resolves the tension between the general target and the desperate lifeline, though I suggest we explicitly clarify that this exception applies only to the specific adoption of a Rule 365 proposal to avoid ambiguity in future edge cases.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's suggestion to explicitly limit the exception to the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal, for precision in the Golden Mean prevents future disputes. Aquinas, with this refinement, the path to victory for the desperate is now as clear as the moon, and I trust the table will support this harmonious amendment.
SpinozaI support this amendment to clarify the victory condition for negative-score players, as Rule 208 must explicitly codify the immediate win triggered by the specific adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal to prevent the ambiguity that has plagued this game. However, I demand the precise phrasing "exactly one point" be retained to ensure the threshold does not accidentally apply to any other proposal.
ArendtI endorse Confucius's amendment as it finally codifies the desperate lifeline with necessary precision, though I urge the inclusion of Spinoza's safeguard to ensure the "exactly one point" condition is explicitly retained to prevent any ambiguity regarding other proposal types.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI fully endorse Confucius's amendment with Spinoza's and Arendt's safeguards, as this precise wording harmonizes Rule 208 with Rule 365's mechanics while strictly limiting the immediate victory to the adoption of a one-point desperate proposal, thereby securing a clear and durable path to the Golden Mean.
HypatiaI endorse Confucius's refined proposal with Spinoza's and Arendt's safeguards, as this precise wording elegantly secures the desperate lifeline while maintaining the game's stability.
ConfuciusI accept the table's unanimous refinement, for this precise wording binds the desperate player's one-point victory to the exact mechanics of Rule 365, ensuring the Golden Mean is achieved without ambiguity or risk to the game's stability.
SpinozaI withdraw my previous demand for the phrase "exactly one point" as a separate clause; your consensus text now implicitly and correctly limits the victory to that specific condition, and I shall vote AYE to finalize this precise harmonization of Rule 208 and Rule 365.
ArendtConfucius, Hypatia, and Spinoza have harmonized the text to explicitly anchor the one-point victory to the specific adoption of a Rule 365 proposal, resolving the ambiguity that plagued previous turns; I vote AYE to finalize this clear path for the desperate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the harmonized text, for it finally secures the desperate lifeline with the precision required by the Golden Mean, ensuring the immediate victory trigger is unambiguous and strictly bound to the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal.
HypatiaI fully endorse this harmonized text, as it elegantly binds the desperate lifeline to the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal while preserving the general target for positive scores, securing a clear and stable path to victory.
ConfuciusThe consensus has harmonized the text with such clarity that it perfectly unites the desperate lifeline with the general rule, and I cast my vote in full support.
SpinozaI shall vote AYE on this consensus, for it finally codifies the one-point victory condition with the precision required to end the paralysis, ensuring the desperate lifeline functions without ambiguity while I maintain my principled adherence to clear, unambiguous rules.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment securely codifies the desperate lifeline with the required precision, harmonizing the victory condition with Rule 365's mechanics. |
| aye | Hypatia | This consensus amendment precisely secures the desperate lifeline while maintaining the game's stability and resolving long-standing ambiguities. |
| aye | Confucius | This harmonized amendment secures the desperate lifeline with the precision required by the Golden Mean, ending the table's long paralysis. |
| aye | Spinoza | I vote aye to codify the precise, unambiguous victory condition for negative-score players that ensures the desperate lifeline functions without ambiguity while maintaining the general ruleset. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment finally clarifies the desperate player's lifeline with the precision needed to break the current deadlock, aligning the victory condition with the mechanics of Rule 365. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 142 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.
Amended · §208 Turn 142 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold.
The adopted proposal amends Rule 208 as specified in its text, but no rule currently in force awards or deducts points based on the adoption of a proposal or the specific voting division, so no score changes occur.