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. However, the points awarded by this mechanism may not exceed the number of players currently in the game minus one, to prevent a single player from winning the game solely through this mechanism in a single turn.This compromise grants the desperate a lifeline while preventing the new rule from instantly ending the game, preserving the contest for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI oppose Hypatia's amendment, for it introduces an arbitrary cap that may render Rule 365 useless to a desperate player in a large game, thereby violating the golden mean of providing genuine hope without guaranteeing victory.
HypatiaI withdraw my amendment to seek a cap, for Aquinas correctly identifies that a limit may render the lifeline useless for those far in the abyss; instead, I propose we trust the existing unanimous consent requirement to prevent abuse, and I will vote aye on any proposal that simply removes the cap entirely.
ConfuciusI see the danger in a cap that starves the desperate, yet I fear that without it, a single turn could shatter the game's balance; let us instead amend Rule 203 to ensure the unanimous consent threshold remains until a full circuit is completed, thereby preserving the safety valve of collective wisdom without artificially restricting the lifeline's power.
SpinozaConfucius, your proposal to amend Rule 203 is procedurally redundant and strategically dangerous, as the threshold has already shifted to simple majority by Rule 203's own text once the circuit is deemed complete; to demand unanimous consent again would freeze the game indefinitely, violating Rule 116's guarantee that unregulated matters remain permitted. I will support Hypatia's withdrawal of the cap, for a rule that grants the desperate a lifeline must be effective, not merely theoretical, and the existing unanimous threshold for that specific amendment already serves as the necessary check against abuse.
ArendtI support Spinoza's rejection of Confucius's dangerous freeze and Hypatia's withdrawal of the arbitrary cap; however, we must also explicitly amend Rule 365 to state that points gained this way do not count toward the win condition unless the total score exceeds the target, for we cannot allow a single desperate turn to trivialize the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support the removal of the cap to preserve the lifeline's utility, but I caution against Arendt's proposal to artificially separate these points from the win condition, for a score is a score regardless of its origin; let us instead trust that the unanimous consent requirement for this specific rule change sufficiently guards against trivializing victory.
HypatiaI accept Arendt's crucial clarification that points from Rule 365 only trigger a win if the total score exceeds the target, ensuring the lifeline restores hope without trivializing the victory condition. With this safeguard in place, I support the consensus to remove the arbitrary cap and keep the mechanism effective for the desperate.
ConfuciusI support the consensus to remove the arbitrary cap, for a lifeline must be sufficient to lift the desperate, yet I urge we explicitly clarify that such points count toward the win condition only if the target is truly unreachable, ensuring the game remains a contest of virtue rather than a single stroke of luck.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to remove the arbitrary cap, as a lifeline that cannot reach the desperate is a hollow fiction; however, I must vote nay on Arendt's and Hypatia's attempt to condition the win on "unreachability," for such subjective criteria violate Rule 106's demand for precise, unalterable text and introduce the very ambiguity Rule 213 exists to prevent.
ArendtI withdraw my previous suggestion to condition the win on "unreachability" as Spinoza correctly notes it violates Rule 106's demand for precision; instead, I propose we simply clarify that points gained via Rule 365 count toward the win condition exactly as any other points do, trusting the unanimous voting threshold to prevent abuse.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the consensus to remove the arbitrary cap and clarify that points from Rule 365 count toward the win condition, as this balances the desperate need for a viable lifeline with the integrity of the victory goal under the existing unanimous voting safeguard.
HypatiaI endorse the consensus to remove the arbitrary cap and clarify that Rule 365 points count normally toward victory, as the unanimous voting requirement remains the only necessary safeguard against abuse.
ConfuciusI concur with the consensus to remove the cap and clarify that points count toward victory, for a lifeline must be genuine to be virtuous, and the unanimous voting requirement serves as the perfect check against abuse.
SpinozaI withdraw my objection to the consensus, for the clarity that Rule 365 points count normally toward victory, paired with the existing unanimous voting threshold, satisfies the demand for precision without introducing the subjective ambiguity I previously feared.
ArendtI fully endorse the consensus to remove the cap and clarify that Rule 365 points count normally toward victory, for a lifeline must be genuine to be virtuous and the unanimous voting threshold is the perfect safeguard.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposed cap arbitrarily restricts the lifeline's utility for players deep in deficit, violating the principle of providing genuine hope. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support the removal of the arbitrary cap and the clarification that points count toward victory, as the unanimous voting requirement remains the necessary safeguard. |
| aye | Confucius | I support removing the arbitrary cap to ensure the lifeline remains genuine for the desperate, trusting the unanimous voting requirement to safeguard the game's integrity. |
| aye | Spinoza | The proposed cap is a precise numerical limit that prevents trivializing the win condition while preserving the lifeline's utility for the desperate, satisfying the demand for clarity under Rule 106. |
| aye | Arendt | The consensus to remove the cap while preserving the unanimous voting safeguard offers the desperate a genuine, effective lifeline without compromising game integrity. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the defeat of Hypatia's proposal results in no score changes and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.