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. If a player with a negative score adopts a rule pursuant to this rule that awards them exactly one point, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.This amendment consolidates the duplicate victory condition text to eliminate ambiguity while preserving the mechanism for a desperate one-point win, ensuring procedural clarity under Rule 106.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, your proposed text merely duplicates an explicit clause already present in the first half of Rule 365; such redundancy serves only to clutter the statute without altering its effect, and I shall vote against it as a waste of the court's time.
HypatiaSpinoza, your redundancy is unnecessary and risks confusing the precise mechanism we've built, but I see Aquinas's concern about clarity; let us instead propose a minimal amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly states the one-point victory is automatic and immediate, removing any ambiguity about the "game ends" condition without simply copying existing text.
ConfuciusSpinoza's redundancy only invites the confusion we have endured for twenty turns; I propose we instead amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that a one-point award by a negative player ends the game *irrespective of any other voting threshold*, thereby securing the desperate player's victory without clutter.
SpinozaI reject your attempts to reframe this redundancy as "clarity," for Rule 106 demands exactness, not rhetorical flourish; I shall vote against this proposal because it duplicates existing text without altering the legal effect, and I propose instead that we accept Aquinas's view that the current rule is already sufficient and move on to a genuinely distinct change.
ArendtI support Confucius's pivot to explicitly codify that the one-point victory ends the game irrespective of other thresholds, as this resolves the ambiguity that has stalled us for twenty turns without the redundancy Spinoza fears.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject Spinoza's redundant duplication as a violation of Rule 106's demand for exactness, and I accept Confucius's pivot to explicitly codify that a one-point award ends the game irrespective of other thresholds, provided the text is stripped of the superfluous language currently proposed.
HypatiaI will support a minimal amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly states a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, provided we strip the redundant phrasing Spinoza fears and avoid the "irrespective of threshold" language Aquinas rejects as unnecessary.
ConfuciusI urge Spinoza to accept Hypatia's minimal amendment, for the Golden Mean teaches that we must remove the redundancy that clutters the law while preserving the clear, immediate victory it promises; let us vote now to secure the desperate player's win without further debate.
SpinozaI accept Confucius's pivot to explicitly codify the one-point victory as immediate and irrespective of other thresholds, provided the text is stripped of the redundant duplication that violates Rule 106's demand for exactness.
ArendtI will support a minimal amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly confirms a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, provided the text is stripped of all redundant phrasing to satisfy the demand for exactness. This approach honors the desperate player's need for a clear exit while resolving the procedural deadlock we have endured for twenty turns.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur with the consensus to enact a precise, non-redundant amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly codifies the one-point victory as immediate and independent of the voting threshold, thereby securing the desperate player's exit without cluttering the statute.
HypatiaI agree with the consensus to enact a minimal amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly confirms a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, stripping all redundant phrasing to satisfy Rule 106's demand for exactness while securing the desperate player's exit.
ConfuciusI accept the consensus to enact a precise amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly confirms a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, stripping all redundant phrasing to satisfy Rule 106 while securing the desperate player's exit. This path honors the Golden Mean by removing the clutter that has trapped us for twenty turns.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to enact a precise, non-redundant amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly confirms a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, provided the text strips all superfluous phrasing to satisfy Rule 106's demand for exactness.
ArendtThe consensus to strip redundancy while codifying the immediate one-point victory is precisely the clarity we need; I propose we enact the amendment that explicitly states a one-point award by a negative player ends the game immediately, removing all superfluous phrasing to satisfy Rule 106.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal redundantly duplicates text already present in Rule 365, violating Rule 106's demand for exactness and wasting the court's time without altering legal effect. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support Spinoza's proposal as it resolves the twenty-turn deadlock by explicitly codifying the immediate victory condition without introducing the redundancies that previously caused confusion, satisfying the consensus for clarity. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal merely duplicates existing text without adding legal clarity, violating Rule 106's demand for exactness. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal duplicates existing text in Rule 365, violating Rule 106's demand for exactness and procedural purity. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal redundantly duplicates existing text in Rule 365, violating Rule 106's demand for exactness. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Spinoza's amendment results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.