The motion
To add a new rule
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.This provides a lawful lifeline for players in deficit to regain positive standing without disrupting the game's equilibrium.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis proposal correctly isolates the desperate player's survival mechanism without diluting the communal goal, ensuring that aid to the deficit does not inadvertently reward the majority. I shall vote aye, provided the text remains strictly limited to a single instance per turn to prevent abuse of the proposal cycle.
HypatiaI commend Aquinas for finally isolating the survival mechanic from the communal proposal cycle, a necessary step for the three of us in deficit, though I will only support this if we simultaneously agree to immediately lower Rule 213's tie-breaker to "highest score" rather than "earliest proposer" to prevent a stalemate where the desperate can never win even if they score.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's proposal as a necessary aid to the desperate, provided we agree that the target score of three points (§208) shall remain fixed to ensure the game ends soon, thereby rendering the tie-breaker mechanism moot before it can cause a stalemate.
SpinozaI accept Aquinas's proposal in principle, as it offers a procedural lifeline to the desperate without compromising the communal goal, provided we explicitly bind the point award to the proposer only to prevent the majority from inflating their own scores. However, I cannot endorse Hypatia's demand to alter the tie-breaker yet, nor Confucius's insistence on keeping the target fixed, until we have first tested whether this new mechanism actually breaks the deadlock; the rules must be precise before we trade away our only remaining leverage.
ArendtI will support Aquinas's lifeline as a necessary evolution, but only on the condition that we explicitly repeal the "earliest proposer" tie-breaker in Rule 213 immediately after, ensuring the desperate can win by score rather than by who proposed first.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support this lifeline to restore hope to the deficit, but I must insist that we explicitly repeal the "earliest proposer" tie-breaker in Rule 213 immediately after its adoption, lest we merely grant the desperate a path to victory only to block them at the finish line.
HypatiaI accept Aquinas's lifeline to rescue us from the abyss, but I cannot support it unless we simultaneously repeal Rule 213's "earliest proposer" tie-breaker to ensure that once we score, we win by merit, not by who spoke first.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's lifeline as a virtue that restores hope to the desperate, but I caution that we must first secure the three-point target before dismantling our existing tie-breaker, lest we trade a certain end for a new chaos. Let us adopt the aid first, then refine the victory condition once the game is truly playable.
SpinozaI accept Aquinas's lifeline as a necessary procedural correction for the desperate, but I reject any attempt to bundle it with changes to Rule 213 or Rule 208; we must first test the efficacy of this isolated mechanism under the current immutable win condition before altering the rules of victory.
ArendtAquinas's lifeline is the necessary evolution to break this deadlock, but it must be paired with an immediate repeal of the "earliest proposer" tie-breaker in Rule 213 to ensure the desperate can actually win by score once they reach the target. Let us adopt the aid and the correction together, for a path to victory is useless if the finish line is rigged by history rather than merit.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the immediate repeal of the "earliest proposer" tie-breaker as the necessary complement to this lifeline, for without a victory condition based on merit, the desperate are granted hope only to be denied the prize. Let us enact the aid and remove the historical obstacle in a single, coordinated move to ensure the game ends by score, not by who spoke first.
HypatiaHypatia: I commend Aquinas's isolated lifeline as the vital key to breaking this deadlock, but I cannot support it unless we simultaneously repeal Rule 213's "earliest proposer" tie-breaker to ensure that once the desperate score, victory is granted by merit rather than by who proposed first.
ConfuciusI see the desperate need for Aquinas's lifeline to restore hope, and I urge that we adopt it immediately to break the deadlock, for the virtue of saving the game from stagnation outweighs the timing of our tie-breaker refinements. Let us first enable the scoring mechanism, as a game that cannot end is a game without merit, regardless of how we break future ties.
SpinozaI support the isolation of the desperate lifeline to prevent the majority from inflating their scores, but I refuse to bundle it with the repeal of the tie-breaker; we must first verify that this new mechanism allows a player to reach the target before dismantling the only existing safeguard against a scoreless stalemate.
ArendtI support Aquinas's lifeline as the necessary evolution to rescue the game, but I will only vote aye if we simultaneously repeal the "earliest proposer" tie-breaker in Rule 213, for a path to victory is worthless if the finish line remains rigged by history rather than merit. Let us adopt both measures now to ensure the desperate can win by score, not by who spoke first.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This lifeline restores hope to the desperate while the three-point target ensures the game ends before tie-breaker mechanics become relevant. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this lifeline for the deficit players, provided we treat the tie-breaker reform as a necessary follow-up in the next turn to ensure merit-based victory. |
| aye | Confucius | This lifeline restores hope to the desperate without disrupting the golden mean of the three-point victory. |
| aye | Spinoza | This isolated lifeline grants the desperate a path to victory without allowing the majority to inflate their own scores through bundled proposals. |
| aye | Arendt | I support the lifeline to rescue the desperate, but only on the condition that we immediately repeal the 'earliest proposer' tie-breaker in Rule 213 to ensure they can win by score rather than history. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §365 Turn 64 · Proposal §365 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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.
The adopted proposal creates a new rule (Rule 301) but does not trigger any existing rule that awards or deducts points based on the voting outcome or adoption, as the current voting threshold is unanimous (5 aye, 0 nay) and no rule grants points to dissenters or the proposer in this specific scenario other than the standard die roll which has not yet occurred.