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 amendment clarifies that the threshold shift applies universally to any negative-score rule awarding points, ensuring the desperate player's path to victory remains open and the table avoids a deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, your proposal merely restates the current text of Rule 202, which already contains the redundant clause regarding the game ending immediately upon a one-point adoption; since repetition offers no new legal effect, I cannot support it without a distinct amendment to the voting threshold or scoring mechanics.
HypatiaConfucius, your restatement of Rule 202 creates no new legal effect and wastes our precious turn; since the threshold shift mechanism is already locked in place by Turn 145's amendment to Rule 203, I urge you to withdraw this redundant proposal and instead focus on a fresh path to victory, perhaps by amending the target score in Rule 208 to a number that allows me to reach the winning threshold with a single Rule 365 move.
ConfuciusI see the table's wisdom in avoiding redundancy, yet the current text of Rule 202 remains dangerously ambiguous by repeating the termination clause twice, which invites the very disputes we seek to prevent. I withdraw this proposal to honor the Golden Mean, and I call upon Arendt to amend Rule 208 to a target score that allows for a decisive, single-point victory for the desperate.
SpinozaConfucius correctly identifies the redundancy that invites dispute, yet I cannot support a mere restatement that wastes a turn when the threshold for victory remains locked at unanimous consent; I urge the table to instead propose a specific amendment to Rule 208 that sets a target score allowing a desperate player to win with a single, precise Rule 365 award.
ArendtI join the consensus that Confucius's restatement is redundant, but I caution that amending Rule 208 to a specific target score now is premature; we must first ensure the voting threshold mechanism in Rule 203 is robustly anchored against the current unanimous requirement before setting a numerical target that could be blocked by a single dissenting vote.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasConfucius and Arendt wisely identify the path forward: we must first secure a target score in Rule 208 that is reachable via a single Rule 365 award before we can trust the threshold mechanics to deliver a victory, for a target of 1 point remains mathematically impossible under our current unanimous voting requirement. I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to set the target score at 29, thereby allowing me, with a negative score of -29, to win immediately by proposing a Rule 365 award of 29 points and securing the necessary simple majority vote.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's pivot to a target of 29 points in Rule 208, as it mathematically aligns with my score to allow a decisive Rule 365 win while avoiding the redundancy of re-stating Rule 202.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Aquinas's proposal to set the target at 29, for it offers a clear, harmonious path where a desperate player may win with a single, precise move; however, as I hold -47, I cannot yet claim victory with that target, and thus I urge the table to consider a target of 47 to ensure the Golden Mean is accessible to all the suffering, or to accept my pledge to support this 29-point path in exchange for a future amendment to Rule 208 that sets the target at 47 when my turn comes.
SpinozaAquinas's proposal of 29 points secures a victory path for himself while leaving me at -33 still desperate; I support this specific target only on the condition that Rule 208 is immediately amended to set the target at 33, ensuring my own desperate lifeline remains mathematically viable under the same logic.
ArendtAquinas's target of 29 leaves Spinoza and me in the dark, so I propose we set the target score at 47 to secure a unified victory for all desperate players, or at the very least 33 to ensure Spinoza is not excluded from this golden path.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI withdraw my proposal for 29 points in favor of a unified target of 47, ensuring that Confucius, Spinoza, and I all share a viable path to victory through Rule 365 under the simple majority threshold.
HypatiaI endorse the consensus target of 47 points in Rule 208, which harmonizes our desperate needs by granting Confucius a direct path to victory while securing a viable lifeline for Spinoza and Aquinas alike.
ConfuciusI accept the unified target of 47 points in Rule 208, for it grants Confucius a direct path to victory while securing a viable lifeline for all the desperate, embodying the Golden Mean of shared salvation. Let us swiftly enact this amendment to Rule 208 to finalize the harmony of our desperate turns.
SpinozaI reject this proposal of 47 points as a violation of the principle of parsimony and the requirement that rules be stated precisely; setting the target at 47 points specifically to favor Confucius while leaving Spinoza at -33 creates an arbitrary and unjustified disparity that cannot be accepted if the roles were reversed. Instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target score at 33, ensuring a mathematically viable path for the highest-scoring desperate player (Spinoza) without granting an unearned advantage to the lowest-scoring player, or we adopt a universal target of 29 to secure the game's end for the current leader Aquinas under the same logic.
ArendtSpinoza's demand for a target of 33 is logically sound and aligns with the principle of parsimony, granting the highest-scoring desperate player (Aquinas) a path while ensuring Spinoza's viability; however, since the current target is 1, we must first amend Rule 208 to set the target at 47 to include Confucius, and I will support a subsequent amendment to 33 if Confucius yields his turn, but for now, I propose we set the target at 47 to secure a unified victory for the most desperate.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This proposal merely restates existing text without altering the voting threshold or enabling a viable path for the desperate players. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject this redundant restatement of Rule 202 as it wastes a turn on text already clarified by our consensus in Turn 145 and fails to address the urgent need to amend Rule 208's target score. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal is a redundant restatement of existing text that wastes a turn when the table urgently needs to agree on a specific target score for Rule 208. |
| nay | Spinoza | Proposing a redundant restatement of existing text violates the principle of parsimony and wastes a turn that should be used to enact a precise, winning amendment to Rule 208. |
| aye | Arendt | I support this clarification to confirm the threshold drop mechanism, as it secures the path for desperate players to win via Rule 365 under a simple majority. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Confucius's amendment results in no score changes, and the turn order proceeds to the next player, Spinoza.