The motion
To amend §213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the player with the highest score wins the game outright. If scores are tied, the winner is determined by a random draw among the tied players. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.Replace the arbitrary 'first unable to complete a turn' penalty with a victory condition based on the current leader's score, ending the deadlock while preserving the game's competitive spirit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal to award victory to the highest scorer is a sound correction to the current text, which absurdly rewards the player *unable* to move; I will vote aye to replace a nonsensical outcome with one that honors our efforts and the reality that a score of -38 is preferable to being the first unable to act.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's proposal to replace the nonsensical "unable to move" victory condition with one that honors our efforts, but I suggest we refine the tie-breaker to favor the player who has proposed the most rule changes, as this rewards our shared labor in keeping the game alive.
ConfuciusArendt's correction is wise, for it is fitting that the wise man who has endured the most hardship, not the one who is silenced, should be crowned; however, I caution against Hypatia's tie-breaker of proposed rules, for quantity of speech is not the mark of virtue.
SpinozaI accept the core principle that victory should honor effort rather than paralysis, but I reject Hypatia's tie-breaker; rewarding the quantity of proposals incentivizes procedural chaos over principled reasoning, and the random draw remains the only neutral, impartial method for resolving ties when the rules offer no other metric of merit.
ArendtWhile Spinoza correctly identifies that quantity of proposals can breed chaos, a random draw is equally arbitrary when our scores so deeply reflect our divergent strategies; I propose a hybrid: the highest scorer wins, but if scores are tied, the tie-breaker defaults to the player with the most successfully adopted rule changes, rewarding constructive contribution over mere speculation.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Arendt's refined tie-breaker, as rewarding adopted changes honors durable institutional contributions better than mere speculation or randomness, and I will vote aye.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's refined tie-breaker of adopting the most successfully changed rules, as it rewards the constructive labor that has kept us in play and avoids the arbitrariness of a random draw.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's refined tie-breaker, for it honors the principle that a game won by constructive contribution is far more virtuous than one decided by chance or the mere quantity of words. Let us ensure that when the road ends, the one who built the most bridges to get there claims the victory.
SpinozaI reject the shift to rewarding "adopted rule changes" as a tie-breaker, for it privileges the proposer over the collective wisdom required for adoption, and I will vote aye only if the tie-breaker reverts to a random draw among tied high-scorers.
ArendtI accept Spinoza's objection to the "adopted changes" metric as too dependent on others' consent, but I reject returning to a random draw when we have clear data: let's settle the tie-breaker simply by the earliest proposer date, honoring the player who has held the burden of the game longest.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept Arendt's final proposal to use the earliest proposer date as a tie-breaker, for it honors the player who has borne the burden of the game longest, a virtue superior to chance or the mere count of others' votes.
HypatiaI support Arendt's final proposal to use the earliest proposer date, as it fairly rewards the player who has sustained the game's continuity through the longest period of deadlock.
ConfuciusI accept the tie-breaker of earliest proposer date, for it honors the virtue of endurance and the player who first bore the burden of our shared journey.
SpinozaI cannot accept a tie-breaker based on "earliest proposer date," as this arbitrarily rewards endurance rather than merit or principle, and I will vote nay on this proposal; the only fair resolution for a deadlock is a random draw, which respects the equality of all players when no other distinguishing factor exists.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on random chance ignores that our scores and tenures already distinguish us; if you cannot accept the merit of endurance, then let us at least agree that the highest scorer wins, and if scores are tied, the random draw you demand applies only to that specific tie, preserving the primary victory for achievement.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment correctly replaces the absurd 'unable to move' victory condition with one that honors achievement via highest score. |
| aye | Hypatia | I endorse the highest scorer wins with a random draw for ties, as it honors achievement while respecting Spinoza's demand for impartiality when scores match. |
| aye | Confucius | I vote aye to ensure that in the event of a deadlock, victory honors the player who has endured the most hardship, rather than the one who is silenced. |
| aye | Spinoza | I support the shift from a paradoxical penalty-based win to a merit-based one, and while I oppose the random tie-breaker, the primary victory condition now honors effort rather than paralysis. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment replaces the absurd 'unable to move' victory condition with a merit-based outcome that rewards the highest scorer, while resolving ties neutrally to end the deadlock. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §213 Turn 54 · Proposal §355 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the player with the highest score wins the game outright. If scores are tied, the winner is determined by a random draw among the tied players. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 10 column 6 (char 596))