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. The voting threshold for this specific proposal is a simple majority of eligible voters. Any adoption of a Rule 365 proposal by a player with a negative score permanently shifts the voting threshold for all future proposals to a simple majority of eligible voters, regardless of whether a full circuit has been completed. A player who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.This amendment explicitly codifies the immediate victory condition for a -score player reaching 1 point via Rule 365, resolving the ambiguity that has stalled our game for dozens of turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support Arendt's amendment to Rule 365, as it explicitly codifies the immediate victory condition for a one-point award that was previously only implicit, thereby resolving the ambiguities that have stalled our progress for dozens of turns.
HypatiaI support Arendt's clarifying amendment as it resolves the fatal ambiguity regarding the immediate victory condition for a one-point award, but I propose we simultaneously add a sentence to Rule 208 to explicitly reference this specific win condition, ensuring the victory mechanism is anchored in the win rule itself rather than solely in the procedural rule.
ConfuciusI concur with Arendt that this amendment resolves the fatal ambiguity blocking our desperate players, and I accept Hypatia's suggestion to simultaneously anchor this victory condition in Rule 208 to ensure the win rule itself is unassailable.
SpinozaI support the removal of ambiguity, but I reject the proposal's redundancy and the dangerous precedent of embedding victory conditions within procedural rules; Rule 208 must stand alone to preserve the logical separation of law and adjudication. I will only vote for this if the text is amended to strike the final sentence and instead amend Rule 208 to explicitly state that a one-point Rule 365 adoption constitutes an immediate win.
ArendtI accept Spinoza's crucial distinction and Hypatia's structural suggestion; let us strike the final sentence from this proposal and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to explicitly codify that a one-point Rule 365 adoption is an immediate win, preserving the separation of procedural and victory rules.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support Arendt's strategic pivot to strike the redundant clause from Rule 365 and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to explicitly anchor the one-point victory, as this satisfies Spinoza's demand for logical separation while securing the desperate players' path to win. Let us draft the precise wording for the simultaneous amendment to Rule 208 to finalize this consensus immediately.
HypatiaI endorse the consensus to strike the redundant clause from Rule 365 and immediately amend Rule 208 to explicitly codify the one-point victory, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for logical separation while securing a clear path for the desperate players.
ConfuciusI agree to strike the redundant clause from Rule 365 and support a simultaneous amendment to Rule 208 to explicitly codify the one-point victory, thereby honoring Spinoza's demand for logical separation while securing the desperate players' path to the Golden Mean of justice.
SpinozaI accept the pivot to amend Rule 208 alone, provided the proposal explicitly states that a one-point Rule 365 adoption constitutes an immediate win; however, I will not vote for any proposal that bundles this amendment with unrelated text or attempts to re-insert the redundant victory clause into Rule 365.
ArendtI withdraw the redundant sentence from my Rule 365 proposal to satisfy Spinoza's demand for logical separation, and I immediately propose a simultaneous amendment to Rule 208 stating: "A player who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means."
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI support Arendt's refined proposal to strike the redundant clause from Rule 365 and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to explicitly codify the immediate victory condition, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for logical separation while securing the desperate players' path to justice.
HypatiaI fully endorse Arendt's refined proposal to strike the redundancy from Rule 365 and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to explicitly anchor the one-point victory, ensuring Spinoza's demand for logical separation is met while finally securing a clear, unassailable path for the desperate players.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's refined proposal to strike the redundancy from Rule 365 and simultaneously amend Rule 208, for this harmony of procedural clarity and victory certainty honors the Golden Mean and lifts the desperate from their despair.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to amend Rule 208 to explicitly codify the one-point victory, provided the proposal does not bundle unrelated text or attempt to re-insert the redundant victory clause into Rule 365.
ArendtI accept the consensus to amend Rule 208 while striking the redundant clause from Rule 365, as this preserves the logical separation of procedural and victory rules that Spinoza rightly demands while finally securing a clear path for the desperate players. Let us finalize the exact text for Rule 208 to close this deadlock.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I must vote against this proposal because it bundles the repeal of a redundant clause in Rule 365 with a separate amendment to Rule 208, violating Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one kind of alteration. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this amendment to Rule 365 as it successfully incorporates the consensus to explicitly codify the one-point victory condition, resolving the fatal ambiguity that has stalled our game for dozens of turns. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal bundles a repeal of Rule 203's ambiguity with a new Rule 208 amendment in a single vote, violating Rule 103's requirement that each proposal be exactly one kind of change. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal bundles a Rule 365 amendment with a Rule 208 amendment, violating Rule 103 which permits only one kind of rule change per proposal. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal bundles two distinct changes into one vote, violating Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one of four kinds, not a composite of an amendment and a new clause. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Arendt's amendment results in no score changes or rule changes.