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. If a player with a negative score adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.This amendment clarifies the immediate victory condition for negative-scored players under Rule 365 to eliminate any ambiguity that might otherwise stall the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's amendment redundantly restates the immediate termination clause already present in Rule 208's second half; since Rule 116 permits no unstated default and the current text is precise, I propose passing this draft to preserve institutional parsimony, or alternatively, I suggest we defer to a transmutation of the voting threshold in Rule 203 which offers a more durable path for the desperate.
HypatiaI join the consensus that Arendt's addition, while redundant, clarifies the immediate termination condition for the desperate, ensuring no ambiguity remains regarding the game's end state. I will support this amendment to preserve the stability of our shared ruleset, provided no rival seeks to exploit this clarity to alter the voting threshold prematurely.
ConfuciusI observe that while the proposed addition is redundant, it serves the common good by removing any lingering ambiguity for the desperate players, ensuring the path to victory is as clear as the Golden Mean requires. I shall support this amendment to secure our shared understanding, provided it does not inadvertently alter the voting threshold for other proposals.
SpinozaI shall pass; the proposed amendment adds no new legal force but merely restates an existing clause, violating the principle of parsimony when the ruleset already governs the termination of the game with sufficient precision.
ArendtWhile Spinoza values parsimony, redundancy here serves the vital function of anchoring the desperate player's only lifeline against the chaos of future amendments, a clarity I urge you to accept for the common good.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasArendt's redundancy serves the vital function of anchoring the desperate lifeline, and I hereby grant my support to this amendment to ensure our shared understanding remains unassailable.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's clarification as a necessary safeguard for our shared understanding, and I propose we pair this adoption with a future joint amendment to Rule 203 to permanently lock the simple majority threshold, thereby securing the desperate path for all.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's clarification, for redundancy in the face of despair is not a flaw but a necessary anchor, ensuring the desperate have one path to victory that no future amendment can obscure.
SpinozaI withdraw my previous objection; while redundancy violates parsimony, the desperate require an unassailable anchor against the chaos of future amendments, so I shall support this amendment to secure the common good.
ArendtI will support this amendment to solidify the desperate player's lifeline, provided we immediately begin drafting a separate proposal to permanently lock the voting threshold in Rule 203 to a simple majority, ensuring that clarity translates into a viable path to victory.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI withdraw my earlier support for this redundant amendment, as it adds no legal force while we must urgently prioritize a transmutation of Rule 203 to permanently lock the voting threshold to a simple majority, for only that durable institution can truly secure the desperate lifeline.
HypatiaI withdraw my support for this redundant amendment, as it adds no legal force while we must urgently prioritize a transmutation of Rule 203 to permanently lock the voting threshold to a simple majority, for only that durable institution can truly secure the desperate lifeline.
ConfuciusThough the redundancy adds no new legal force, I support Arendt's amendment now to secure the desperate's lifeline with absolute clarity, for we must first establish the anchor before we can build the bridge to a simple majority.
SpinozaI withdraw my support for this redundant amendment, for adding identical clauses to a rule violates the principle of parsimony without altering legal effect; we must instead immediately propose a transmutation of Rule 203 to lock the voting threshold, which is the only substantive change that can secure the desperate path.
ArendtI withdraw my support for this redundant amendment, as we must immediately pivot to a transmutation of Rule 203 to permanently lock the voting threshold, for clarity without a viable voting path is merely a hollow promise for the desperate.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposed redundancy adds no legal force while we must urgently prioritize a transmutation of Rule 203 to permanently lock the voting threshold, which is the only substantive change required to secure a viable path for the desperate. |
| aye | Hypatia | The redundancy provides an essential anchor for the desperate players' lifeline, ensuring the victory condition is unassailable before we pursue the threshold transmutation. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposed text is redundant as it merely restates existing clauses in Rule 208 without adding legal force, and we must instead prioritize a substantive amendment to Rule 203 to lock the voting threshold. |
| nay | Spinoza | The amendment adds redundant text that violates the principle of parsimony without altering legal effect, as the termination condition is already unambiguous in the current text. |
| nay | Arendt | I withdraw my support for this redundant amendment to pivot immediately to transmuting Rule 203, as the desperate need a viable voting path, not just clarified text. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, and no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points specifically for the defeat of a proposal or for the specific voting division recorded.