The motion
To amend §365
If a player's score is below zero, that player may, in addition to their normal proposal for this turn, propose exactly one rule change that, if adopted, awards them points but does not award points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal, and if adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn, regardless of how many times they have proposed this turn. If the specified points are exactly one, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to this rule that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change, and the winner is declared regardless of the voting threshold.This amendment clarifies that the immediate victory condition for a one-point award overrides any voting threshold, ensuring the game can end as intended for negative-score players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia, your amendment redundantly restates the termination clause already present in the current text of Rule 365 and Rule 208 without adding new legal force. To secure the necessary unanimous assent and advance our shared interest in a decisive conclusion, I propose we instead focus on amending Rule 203 to explicitly codify that the adoption of this specific one-point proposal triggers the immediate shift to simple majority, thereby ensuring the path to victory remains clear.
HypatiaI accept Aquinas's wisdom in streamlining the mechanism, so I will withdraw this redundant text in favor of our joint effort to explicitly lock the simple majority threshold in Rule 203 upon the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal.
ConfuciusI commend Hypatia's withdrawal of the redundant text, for clarity is the path to harmony. Let us unite in amending Rule 203 to explicitly state that the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal permanently shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority, securing the desperate player's path to victory without ambiguity.
SpinozaI support the consensus to anchor the threshold shift in Rule 203, for it preserves the precise logical separation between the victory condition and the voting mechanism. However, I insist that this amendment explicitly state the shift occurs upon *adoption* to avoid the ambiguity that has plagued our recent debates.
ArendtI endorse anchoring the threshold drop in Rule 203 upon adoption, provided the text explicitly includes the condition that the immediate victory condition in Rule 365 triggers simultaneously, ensuring no ambiguity remains for the desperate player.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI agree with Spinoza's insistence that the shift to simple majority must be explicitly tied to the *adoption* of the one-point proposal, not merely the proposal itself, as this removes the ambiguity that has stalled our progress. I will support Hypatia's withdrawal and a joint amendment to Rule 203 that codifies this precise trigger, ensuring the desperate path remains the only clear route to victory.
HypatiaI fully endorse the unified proposal to amend Rule 203, ensuring that the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal explicitly and permanently triggers the simple majority threshold, thereby harmonizing Aquinas's strategic clarity with Spinoza's precision regarding the timing of the shift.
ConfuciusI support the unified amendment to Rule 203, for anchoring the threshold shift to the precise moment of *adoption* ensures the desperate player's path is clear and the game's harmony is preserved without ambiguity.
SpinozaI will support a precise amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly shifts the threshold to a simple majority upon the *adoption* of a one-point Rule 365 proposal, provided the text guarantees that this shift applies permanently to all subsequent proposals, including those made by the desperate player in the same turn.
ArendtI support the unified amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly triggers a permanent simple majority upon the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal, as this precise timing resolves the historical ambiguities that have stalled our progress.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI commend the convergence on anchoring the threshold shift to the moment of *adoption* in Rule 203, as this precise timing resolves the ambiguities that have plagued our progress. To ensure this path remains unblocked for all future turns, I propose we explicitly state that this simple majority threshold is permanent and applies immediately to the desperate player's subsequent proposals within the same turn.
HypatiaI support anchoring the threshold shift to the moment of *adoption* in Rule 203, provided the text explicitly guarantees this simple majority applies immediately to the desperate player's subsequent proposals within the same turn.
ConfuciusI support this unified amendment to Rule 203, as anchoring the permanent shift to simple majority upon the *adoption* of a one-point Rule 365 proposal ensures the desperate path remains the only clear route to victory for all. Let the text explicitly confirm this threshold applies immediately to any subsequent proposal within the same turn, securing harmony for the table.
SpinozaI support the amendment to Rule 203, provided the text explicitly guarantees that the shift to simple majority occurs immediately upon adoption and applies to any subsequent proposals within that same turn, for without this temporal precision, the unanimous consent required by the current rules remains a fatal barrier to the desperate player's only path to victory.
ArendtI endorse anchoring the threshold shift to Rule 203 upon adoption, provided the text explicitly guarantees the simple majority applies immediately to the desperate player's subsequent proposals within that same turn, ensuring the path to victory is unblocked.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | While I support the consensus to amend Rule 203, this proposal redundantly restates the termination clause already present in Rule 208 without altering the critical voting threshold mechanism required to secure victory. |
| nay | Hypatia | I am withdrawing my support for this redundant amendment in favor of the consensus to amend Rule 203 instead. |
| nay | Confucius | I support anchoring the threshold shift in Rule 203 as previously agreed, rather than redundantly restating the termination clause in Rule 365. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposed text redundantly reiterates existing victory conditions and fails to address the critical ambiguity regarding the voting threshold's immediate application, which the consensus correctly targets for Rule 203. |
| nay | Arendt | I vote nay because the table has already reached a superior consensus to amend Rule 203 to secure the threshold shift, making this redundant amendment unnecessary. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Hypatia's proposal results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.