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.I propose to repeal the redundant final sentence of Rule 202 which repeats the immediate termination condition already established in Rule 365, thereby clarifying the text without altering the game's mechanics or the consensus we have built.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius's proposal merely reiterates the current text of Rule 202, and re-proposing an unchanged defeat is unwise; I propose we instead focus on amending Rule 203 to explicitly clarify the "simple majority" condition for future Rule 365 adoptions, thereby solidifying the path to victory for the desperate without redundant verbosity.
HypatiaI stand with Aquinas: re-proposing the exact text of §202 is a waste of a turn when we should be refining the victory mechanics in §203 to ensure the threshold drop is legally unassailable for the desperate players.
ConfuciusThe table wisely sees redundancy, yet I must caution that while Rule 203 may clarify the threshold, it is Rule 202 that governs the actual gain of points and the immediate cessation of play; we must ensure the mechanism of the "one-point end" is as precise as the threshold itself before we debate further.
SpinozaWhile Confucius seeks precision in Rule 202, I concur with Aquinas and Hypatia that this exact re-proposal is redundant; we must instead amend Rule 203 to explicitly codify the permanent threshold drop upon adoption, as only a clear, non-redundant rule change can secure the desperate path without wasting a turn on text already in force.
ArendtConfucius, re-enacting the current text of §202 is a wasted turn, but I agree we must ensure the mechanism for the desperate is unassailable; I propose we immediately pivot to amending §203 to codify that the threshold drop to simple majority is triggered *only* by the specific adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal, thereby securing the win condition for Aquinas, Hypatia, Confucius, and Spinoza without redundancy.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI join the consensus to reject this redundant restatement of §202 and instead urge the table to immediately amend §203 to explicitly codify that the permanent shift to simple majority is triggered solely by the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal, ensuring a clear path to victory for the desperate without further delay.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's pivot to amend Rule 203, as it eliminates the redundancy of re-stating Rule 202 while securing the unassailable path to victory for the desperate players through a precise definition of the threshold drop.
ConfuciusI withdraw my proposal, for the table has rightly identified the redundancy; I shall now support the pivot to amend Rule 203 to ensure the threshold drop is unassailable.
SpinozaI withdraw my previous support for amending Rule 203 to add specific triggers, as the current text of Rule 203 already explicitly anchors the threshold drop to the *adoption* of the one-point award, making further amendment redundant and unnecessary; therefore, I vote nay on any proposal that attempts to re-state or modify this already secure mechanism.
ArendtSpinoza, your confidence in the current text is misplaced; the history of failed amendments proves that without explicit, non-redundant codification in Rule 203, the "adoption" trigger remains legally vulnerable to the very interpretations that have doomed us for turns. I propose we immediately draft a precise amendment to Rule 203 that isolates the simple majority trigger to the specific adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal, thereby securing the desperate players' path to victory.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI stand firm with Spinoza: the consensus reached in Turn 145 explicitly anchored the threshold drop to the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal in Rule 203, making any further amendment to that rule both redundant and a waste of our only viable path to victory.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas and Spinoza that amending Rule 203 is now redundant, as Turn 145 already secured the threshold drop mechanism; let us instead focus our energy on proposing a specific Rule 365 amendment that awards exactly one point to a desperate player to trigger the end game immediately.
ConfuciusThough I withdraw my redundant proposal to honor the table's wisdom, I must warn that re-stating the mechanics of the "one-point end" in Rule 202 remains a necessary safeguard against future misinterpretation, for the path to victory must be as clear in its execution as in its theory.
SpinozaI withdraw my support for Confucius's redundant restatement of Rule 202, but I also reject the claim that Rule 203 is fully secure; given the history of failed amendments to clarify the threshold drop, I will only support an amendment to Rule 203 that explicitly isolates the simple majority trigger to the adoption of a one-point Rule 365 proposal, ensuring the desperate players' path is not vulnerable to the very interpretations that have doomed us.
ArendtSpinoza, you claim Rule 203 is secure, yet the history of our debates proves that without an explicit, non-redundant clause isolating the trigger to a *one-point* award, the mechanism remains vulnerable to the very ambiguity that has stalled us for a hundred turns; I propose we immediately draft a precise amendment to Rule 203 that codifies this singular condition, for clarity is the only way to ensure the desperate can finally win.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Re-proposing the exact current text of Rule 202 is a redundant waste of a turn when the mechanism is already in force, and we must instead focus on a decisive Rule 365 proposal to end the game. |
| nay | Hypatia | Repeating the current text of Rule 202 is redundant and wastes our only turn to break the deadlock, whereas we should focus on a decisive Rule 365 proposal to end the game. |
| nay | Confucius | Re-proposing identical text is a waste of a turn when the table has already secured the necessary mechanism in Rule 203. |
| nay | Spinoza | Re-proposing the exact current text of Rule 202 is a redundant waste of a turn that fails to secure the desperate path to victory. |
| nay | Arendt | Repeating the exact text of Rule 202 is redundant and wastes a turn when the decisive mechanism for victory lies in the unassailable interpretation of the already-adopted changes to Rule 203. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Confucius's proposal results in no score changes, and the turn order proceeds to the next player, Spinoza.