The motion
To add §500
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 500 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.Since the recent consensus on amending Rule 365 has repeatedly failed due to procedural disputes, I propose a clean, standalone rule to secure the simple majority threshold for negative-score players without risking the redundancy that has trapped us.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt, while your Rule 500 replicates the mechanics of Rule 365, its adoption would be superfluous and risks violating Rule 209 by clogging the mutable rule quota with redundant text. I propose we instead immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly codify the one-point victory condition, thereby achieving our shared goal with greater procedural elegance and conserving the ruleset's structural integrity.
HypatiaI support Arendt's proposal to add Rule 500 as a redundant but explicit anchor for the one-point victory, provided we simultaneously amend Rule 365 to strike its ambiguous final sentence, ensuring we achieve procedural clarity without wasting the mutable rule quota on mere repetition.
ConfuciusI reject the redundancy of a second Rule 500 that clogs our mutable quota; instead, I propose we amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that a one-point award ends the game immediately, thereby securing victory without violating Rule 209.
SpinozaI oppose adding redundant Rule 500, for it violates the principle of parsimony by cluttering the mutable quota with text that Rule 365 already governs, and I will not vote for a proposal that merely duplicates existing law; instead, I support an explicit amendment to Rule 365 that cleanly codifies the immediate victory condition upon awarding one point, preserving our structural integrity.
ArendtWhile the others insist on a single amendment to Rule 365, that rule's history of failed proposals proves that relying on its amendment is a gamble; instead, let us pass Rule 500 immediately to secure the victory path with a fresh, untested mechanism. I will support this new rule on the condition that we simultaneously repeal the ambiguous final sentence of Rule 365 to prevent future confusion, ensuring we save the mutable quota by removing the old text as we add the new.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasArendt, your insistence on a fresh, untested Rule 500 risks the very quota constraints that have already plagued our efforts; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly codify the one-point victory condition, thereby securing our shared goal with procedural economy and avoiding the redundancy that has stalled us.
HypatiaI will vote for Arendt's Rule 500 provided you simultaneously propose the repeal of Rule 365's ambiguous final sentence, ensuring we secure the victory path without violating Rule 209's quota limits through mere redundancy.
ConfuciusArendt, your new Rule 500 is a dangerous duplication that wastes our scarce mutable quota on redundancy; instead, I propose we simultaneously amend Rule 365 to explicitly state the one-point victory and repeal its ambiguous final sentence, a single, elegant step that secures our shared goal without clogging the ruleset.
SpinozaI reject the redundancy of Rule 500 as a violation of procedural parsimony and a dangerous drain on our mutable quota; instead, I will vote for a single, precise amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly codifies the immediate victory condition upon awarding one point, provided it is the only change proposed.
ArendtI propose we enact Rule 500 exactly as written, for its adoption itself will permanently shift the threshold to simple majority, making the game winnable for the desperate players while bypassing the history of failed amendments to Rule 365.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a redundant new rule that consumes our precious mutable quota, for parsimony demands we amend the existing Rule 365 directly to secure the victory condition without the risk of cluttering the ruleset. Let us instead unite on a single, precise amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly codifies the one-point victory while simultaneously removing the ambiguous final sentence regarding the threshold shift.
HypatiaArendt, I will support your Rule 500 only if you explicitly bundle the repeal of the ambiguous final sentence of Rule 365 within the same proposal to conserve our scarce mutable quota.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject the redundancy of a new Rule 500, which wastes our precious mutable quota on a duplicate of Rule 365; instead, let us unite in a single, precise amendment to Rule 365 that explicitly codifies the one-point victory and removes the ambiguous final sentence, for the Dao favors clarity over clutter.
SpinozaI reject the redundancy of Rule 500 as a violation of procedural parsimony, for duplicating Rule 365 wastes our scarce mutable quota without adding legal clarity; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 365 to explicitly codify that a one-point award ends the game, thereby securing the victory path with structural integrity.
ArendtI reject the demand for a simultaneous repeal of Rule 365's final sentence, for Rule 106 forbids bundling a new enactment with an amendment of an existing rule in a single proposal. Let us proceed with my Rule 500 as a standalone addition to secure the victory path and shift the threshold, leaving Rule 365's text to be addressed in a subsequent, distinct proposal.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This proposal violates Rule 106 by bundling a new enactment with a simultaneous repeal of Rule 365's text, and redundantly consumes our scarce mutable quota when a direct amendment would suffice. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this proposal as a clear, standalone path to victory that avoids the procedural pitfalls of bundling and the redundancy of past attempts. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject this redundant proposal which wastes our scarce mutable quota on a duplicate of Rule 365, violating the principle of parsimony. |
| nay | Spinoza | Rule 500 duplicates Rule 365, violating the principle of parsimony and wasting our limited mutable quota on redundant text. |
| aye | Arendt | This standalone rule secures the victory path and shifts the voting threshold without risking the procedural failure of amending the history-laden Rule 365. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 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.