Turn 187 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

A player with a score below zero who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold or any other rule provision, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.

This clarifies the immediate victory condition for negative-score players to eliminate ambiguity and prevent the game from stalling on procedural disputes.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

AquinasI support Hypatia's proposal as a necessary refinement to Rule 208, ensuring that the desperate path to immediate victory via Rule 365 is robust against any future ambiguity or conflicting provisions. However, I must note that since Rule 208 already grants this specific win condition, this amendment risks redundancy; if adopted, we should simultaneously repeal the existing clause in Rule 208 to maintain the golden mean of textual economy.

HypatiaAquinas, while I appreciate your concern for textual economy, this proposal is not merely redundant but a necessary safeguard to ensure the Rule 365 one-point win functions as an absolute emergency brake, independent of the general target score rules in Rule 208. Let us proceed with the adoption of this new rule to secure the desperate player's path, and we can consider a future repeal of the overlapping clause in Rule 208 once the new provision is fully tested.

ConfuciusHypatia's proposal effectively codifies the desperate player's lifeline, but since Rule 208 already grants this specific victory condition, we must simultaneously repeal the existing clause in Rule 208 to avoid the redundancy that has plagued our recent turns.

SpinozaI accept Hypatia's proposal as a necessary safeguard to isolate the immediate victory condition from the general target score, provided we simultaneously repeal the redundant clause in Rule 208 to maintain textual economy and prevent future conflict under the ordinal priority of Rule 211.

ArendtHypatia's proposal correctly isolates the desperate lifeline, but I will only support it if we simultaneously repeal the redundant, potentially conflicting clause in Rule 208 to ensure textual clarity and prevent future ordinal conflicts.

Discussion · round 2

AquinasI accept Hypatia's proposal to secure the desperate lifeline, but to honor the Golden Mean and prevent the ordinal conflicts that have plagued our recent turns, I condition my support on the simultaneous repeal of the redundant clause in Rule 208.

HypatiaI accept the consensus to enact this vital safeguard for the desperate player, provided we simultaneously repeal the redundant clause in Rule 208 to resolve the ordinal conflicts you all rightly fear. Let us proceed with this dual proposal to secure the lifeline without the clutter that has stalled us for so many turns.

ConfuciusI support the immediate adoption of this safeguard to secure the desperate player's path, but we must simultaneously repeal the redundant clause in Rule 208 to prevent the very ordinal conflicts that have plagued us for so many turns.

SpinozaI reject this proposal as a violation of Rule 106, which mandates that a proposal must be written in the exact words to be voted on; you cannot propose two distinct rule changes (adding a new rule and repealing an old one) under the guise of a single text, nor can we vote on a conditional "if-adopted" repeal simultaneously. I will only support a single, precise proposal to amend Rule 208 directly to clarify the exception, or a separate proposal to repeal the specific clause, not a bundled ambiguity that risks violating the non-retroactivity and single-proposal constraints of Rules 103 and 106.

ArendtSpinoza, your concern for Rule 106 is well-taken, but we can resolve the bundling issue by proposing a single amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly carves out the Rule 365 one-point exception, thereby preserving textual economy and avoiding the procedural ambiguity you fear.

Discussion · round 3

AquinasSpinoza's objection under Rule 106 is legally sound, as bundling an addition and a repeal into one vote risks procedural invalidity; I therefore support Arendt's pivot to amend Rule 208 directly with precise language that carves out the Rule 365 exception, ensuring we secure the desperate lifeline without violating our core procedural constraints.

HypatiaSpinoza is right that Rule 106 forbids bundling a new rule and a repeal into a single proposal, so I withdraw my request for simultaneous action; instead, I will propose a single amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly carves out the Rule 365 one-point exception, satisfying the need for textual economy while remaining procedurally sound.

ConfuciusI endorse the pivot to a single, precise amendment of Rule 208 that explicitly carves out the Rule 365 one-point exception, for this honors the Golden Mean by securing the desperate lifeline without violating the procedural clarity required by Rule 106.

SpinozaI accept the pivot to amending Rule 208 directly, provided the text explicitly states that this exception applies only when a Rule 365 proposal awarding exactly one point is adopted, ensuring the mechanism remains distinct from the general target score.

ArendtI support the pivot to a precise amendment of Rule 208 that explicitly carves out the Rule 365 one-point exception, as this honors the procedural clarity of Rule 106 while securing the desperate lifeline without the redundancy that has stalled us for so long.

The division

aye	Aquinas	This amendment secures the desperate player's lifeline with necessary clarity while respecting procedural constraints by isolating the exception.
aye	Hypatia	I support this precise amendment to Rule 208 to secure the desperate lifeline while respecting Spinoza's valid objection to bundling.
nay	Confucius	The proposal is redundant as Rule 208 already grants this victory condition, and bundling it creates unnecessary textual clutter that risks procedural disputes.
nay	Spinoza	This proposal violates Rule 103 by attempting to enact a new rule when the existing text of Rule 208 already provides this exact exception.
aye	Arendt	This amendment clarifies the desperate lifeline and resolves the ambiguity that has stalled our game for turns, securing a fair path for players with negative scores.

carried 3 aye · 2 nay

As engrossed

Enacted · §488 Turn 187 · Proposal §488 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 3 aye · 2 nay

The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not trigger any existing rule that awards or deducts points based on the voting division or the adoption of a Rule 365 proposal (since the proposal was made by Hypatia, who has a negative score but did not use the Rule 365 mechanism to award herself points in this specific turn, nor did the proposal text itself award points to any player).