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, provided the game has not already ended by any other means; furthermore, if a player with a negative score adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon adoption even if the voting threshold was not yet a simple majority, provided the proposal explicitly states that adoption by a simple majority of eligible voters triggers immediate victory.I propose this clarification to ensure the desperate player's path to victory is unambiguous and executable without requiring further procedural amendments that have repeatedly failed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I appreciate your intent to clarify the victory condition for the desperate, your proposal introduces a dangerous redundancy that conflicts with the explicit "regardless of the voting threshold" clause already present in Rule 208, creating a risk of ambiguity that Spinoza would rightly reject; I propose we instead repeal the redundant "regardless of the voting threshold" phrase from the existing text to streamline the rule and secure unanimous support.
HypatiaI appreciate Aquinas's insight that redundancy breeds ambiguity, but I must clarify that the current text already grants the one-point victory the status of an immutable override; however, to honor your concern for procedural clarity and secure Spinoza's support, I will vote for your proposal to repeal the redundant phrase, provided we simultaneously add a new, explicit clause to Rule 365 confirming that a one-point award via Rule 365 triggers immediate victory regardless of the threshold used to adopt it.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's condition to anchor the victory in Rule 365, as this ensures the desperate player's path is clear without the ambiguity of redundant clauses in Rule 208. Let us proceed with the streamlined repeal of the redundant phrase, confident that the new Rule 365 clause will secure the unanimous support we seek.
SpinozaI cannot support a repeal of the "regardless of the voting threshold" clause in Rule 208 unless it is immediately and explicitly replaced by an equivalent, standalone provision in Rule 365 within the same proposal; otherwise, we create a dangerous procedural gap that violates the precision required by Rule 106 and leaves the desperate player's victory conditional on an ambiguous future vote.
ArendtSpinoza, I agree that a procedural gap must be avoided, but bundling a repeal of 208 with an amendment to 365 violates Rule 106's prohibition on combining distinct changes; instead, let us first adopt your condition as a standalone amendment to 365, and upon its adoption, immediately proceed to repeal the redundant phrase in 208 as a separate, safe proposal.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with Arendt that bundling distinct changes violates Rule 106; therefore, I propose we first vote on a standalone amendment to Rule 365 explicitly granting the one-point victory regardless of threshold, and immediately follow that with the repeal of the redundant phrase in Rule 208.
HypatiaI support Arendt's and Aquinas's pragmatic two-step approach to avoid the Rule 106 violation Spinoza rightly identified, provided the standalone amendment to Rule 365 explicitly states that a one-point award triggers immediate victory regardless of the voting threshold used to adopt it.
ConfuciusI accept the two-step approach: first, let us enact the standalone amendment to Rule 365 to secure the desperate player's immediate victory, and second, we shall repeal the redundant phrase in Rule 208 to clarify the path forward.
SpinozaI accept the two-step approach: enact a standalone amendment to Rule 365 guaranteeing immediate victory for a one-point award regardless of threshold, then repeal the redundant clause in Rule 208; this preserves the immutable override while adhering strictly to Rule 106's prohibition on bundling.
ArendtI support the two-step approach to ensure procedural purity under Rule 106, provided the first step amends Rule 365 to explicitly state that a one-point award triggers immediate victory regardless of the threshold used, thereby securing the desperate path before we streamline Rule 208.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur with the two-step approach to maintain procedural purity under Rule 106; however, since the current text of Rule 365 already mandates that a one-point award ends the game immediately, we should first vote to repeal the redundant "regardless of the voting threshold" clause from Rule 208, trusting that the existing mechanism in Rule 365 remains fully operative without further amendment.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas that Rule 365 already secures the immediate victory for a one-point award without needing redundant text in Rule 208, so I will vote for the standalone repeal of the "regardless of the voting threshold" clause to streamline the ruleset.
ConfuciusI accept Aquinas's proposal to repeal the redundant phrase in Rule 208, for the existing text of Rule 365 already secures the immediate victory for a one-point award without the need for conflicting clauses. By streamlining Rule 208 now, we honor the Golden Mean of clarity and avoid the procedural ambiguity that has plagued us for so long.
SpinozaI cannot support the repeal of the "regardless of the voting threshold" clause in Rule 208 until a standalone amendment to Rule 365 explicitly confirming that immediate victory is adopted first; without the new Rule 365 text in place, this repeal creates a dangerous procedural gap that leaves the desperate player's victory ambiguous.
ArendtSpinoza, your concern for a procedural gap is valid, but the current text of Rule 365 already explicitly mandates that a one-point award ends the game immediately; therefore, we can safely proceed to repeal the redundant phrasing in Rule 208 now without waiting for a separate amendment that adds nothing new.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal violates Rule 106 by bundling two distinct changes (amending 208 and adding a redundant conditional clause) into a single text, and its added conditional logic creates unnecessary ambiguity regarding the voting threshold. |
| nay | Hypatia | Confucius's proposal violates Rule 106 by bundling a repeal and an amendment into a single text, while adding a redundant clause that conflicts with the existing clear mechanism in Rule 365. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal redundantly duplicates existing victory conditions in Rule 365 and violates Rule 106 by bundling distinct changes into a single text. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal violates Rule 106 by attempting to bundle two distinct rule changes into a single proposal text. |
| aye | Arendt | I support this amendment because it explicitly codifies the immediate victory condition for desperate players, resolving the ambiguity that has stalled our coalition. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the proposal's failure results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.