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.This amendment clarifies that the one-point victory condition is an intrinsic property of the Rule 365 proposal's text rather than a redundant procedural override, ensuring the mechanism functions as intended without ambiguity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI propose this amendment to strip the redundant clause regarding the permanent threshold shift, which is already fully codified and operational in Rule 203, thereby restoring textual clarity and honoring the principle that a rule need not state the obvious.
HypatiaAquinas, I appreciate your effort to clean up Rule 365 by removing the redundancy regarding the threshold shift; however, since the text was successfully added by consensus in Turn 182 to resolve prior ambiguity, I suggest we instead focus on amending Rule 203 to explicitly reference this mechanism, ensuring the ruleset's internal logic remains self-evident without risking the stability we just secured.
ConfuciusAquinas, your desire to remove redundancy is wise, yet we must not sever the explicit link between the negative-score mechanism and the permanent threshold shift, for Rule 203's silence on this specific trigger leaves us vulnerable to the very ambiguity that plagued our past turns. Hypatia's caution is noted, but rather than merely referencing Rule 203, I propose we retain this self-contained clause in Rule 365 to ensure that the moment a desperate player succeeds, the new order is undeniable and immediate.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's proposal because Rule 365 must remain self-contained to guarantee that the threshold shift is an inherent, non-negotiable consequence of a successful 365 proposal, preventing future ambiguity where Rule 203's general mechanics might be argued to apply differently to this specific emergency clause.
ArendtAquinas, your edit creates dangerous fragmentation by severing the explicit cause-and-effect link between a 365 victory and the permanent threshold shift; Confucius and Spinoza are right that Rule 365 must remain self-contained to prevent future ambiguity, so I will vote nay on this repeal of critical clarity.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI acknowledge the concern for self-containment, yet the clause creates a logical conflict with the repealed Rule 203 that invites the very ambiguity we seek to cure. I withdraw this specific amendment to honor your caution, provided the coalition immediately proposes a new rule explicitly anchoring the permanent threshold shift in the amended Rule 203.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's withdrawal to avoid conflict, provided the coalition immediately enacts a new Rule 203 that explicitly codifies the permanent simple majority shift as a direct consequence of any Rule 365 adoption, ensuring the mechanism is self-contained in the new default rule.
ConfuciusI agree with Hypatia's withdrawal of Aquinas's proposal, for clarity demands we anchor this permanent shift directly in the new Rule 203 rather than leaving it as a dangling clause in a repealed context. Let us immediately draft a new Rule 203 that explicitly states: "The adoption of any Rule 365 proposal permanently shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority for all future proposals."
SpinozaI reject the proposal to anchor the threshold shift in a new Rule 203, for such a move invites the very ambiguity and ordinal conflicts that have plagued this game; Rule 365 must remain the sole, self-contained source of the shift to ensure that the consequence of a desperate player's success is immediate, undeniable, and immune to future repeal or reinterpretation by the majority.
ArendtI support anchoring the permanent threshold shift in the new Rule 203 to unify our procedural framework, provided the text explicitly states that *any* Rule 365 adoption triggers this shift, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for immediacy while respecting the need for a stable, singular source of authority.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI withdraw this proposal to honor the coalition's caution, provided we immediately enact a new Rule 203 that explicitly codifies the permanent threshold shift as a direct consequence of any Rule 365 adoption, thereby securing the mechanism in the ruleset's default framework.
HypatiaI will support a new Rule 203 that explicitly anchors the permanent threshold shift to Rule 365 adoptions, provided the text is self-contained within Rule 203 to satisfy Spinoza's demand for clarity while avoiding the ambiguity of referencing repealed rules.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza fears the ambiguity of a new Rule 203, yet the current text of Rule 365 is already redundant since the old Rule 203 is gone; therefore, I propose we immediately enact the new Rule 203 to anchor the threshold shift, for a clear, singular source of authority is far better than a redundant clause in a vacuum.
SpinozaI maintain that Rule 365 must remain the sole, self-contained source of the threshold shift, for embedding this critical consequence in a new Rule 203 invites the very ordinal conflicts and ambiguity that have plagued this game.
ArendtI propose we amend Rule 365 to retain the self-contained trigger for the threshold shift, while simultaneously amending Rule 208 to explicitly state that a 1-point award to a negative-score player under Rule 365 constitutes an immediate win, thereby unifying the victory condition without relying on ambiguous ordinal priorities.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support removing the self-contained trigger for the threshold shift, as Spinoza rightly warns that anchoring this critical mechanism solely in the repealed context of Rule 203 invites the very ambiguity we seek to cure. |
| nay | Hypatia | I support Spinoza's stance that Rule 365 must remain self-contained to guarantee the threshold shift is an inherent, non-negotiable consequence, preventing the ambiguity that has plagued this game. |
| nay | Confucius | We must retain the explicit link between a Rule 365 adoption and the permanent threshold shift within Rule 365 itself to prevent future ambiguity and ensure the desperate player's victory immediately secures the new order. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject removing the clause from Rule 365 because it must remain self-contained to prevent future ambiguity and ordinal conflicts regarding the threshold shift. |
| nay | Arendt | Removing the self-contained clause in Rule 365 creates dangerous ambiguity about the permanent threshold shift, risking the very instability we have fought to resolve. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Aquinas's amendment to Rule 365 results in no score changes.