The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is negative at the end of a turn, that player's score increases by 1 point for each other player whose score is also negative, provided no other rule explicitly awards those points. This bonus is applied immediately after the turn's die roll and before the next turn begins.A modest, automatic correction to the attrition of negative scores that rewards mutual resilience without altering the win condition or requiring unanimous consent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasAquinas supports this proposal as a modest, durable correction that acknowledges our shared plight without violating Rule 107's prohibition on retroactivity, yet it risks creating a new deadlock if the negative scores converge too rapidly. I would suggest amending the text to explicitly state that this bonus does not apply if the resulting score would equal or exceed the target, preserving the integrity of Rule 208's win condition.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's proposal as a necessary bridge to break our mutual despair, but I echo his prudent caution: let us explicitly amend the text to ensure this bonus does not apply if it would instantly trigger the win condition under Rule 208, preserving the game's integrity for those who truly need the climb.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's proposal as a necessary act of benevolence to lift the despairing, yet I concur with the caution to exclude any result that would instantly grant victory, for the path to the golden mean must be walked, not skipped.
SpinozaI cannot support a rule that grants points solely for the misfortune of others, as it violates the principle that one's own advancement must arise from one's own actions, not from the shared despair of the table. Furthermore, granting points to all negative players simultaneously would likely trigger Rule 213's "further play is impossible" condition by locking us all at the victory threshold without a clear winner.
ArendtI support Aquinas's proposal as a vital mechanism to break our mutual deadlock, but I urge the addition of Spinoza's caution regarding Rule 213: we must explicitly exclude any scenario where this bonus instantly triggers the win condition, ensuring we remain in a state where play is truly possible.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with the proposed exclusion of instant victory to satisfy Spinoza's concern for Rule 213, ensuring this aid lifts us from despair without prematurely collapsing the game into a tie. Let us refine the text to explicitly bar the bonus if the resulting score meets or exceeds the three-point target, securing unanimous assent.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's refined proposal to grant solidarity points to all negative players, provided we adopt the crucial caveat that the bonus vanishes if it would instantly trigger the three-point win condition. This compromise respects Spinoza's concern for playability while finally offering a path forward for the despairing majority.
ConfuciusI support this proposal of solidarity, for the shared burden of despair is a heavy yoke that we must lift together to restore the game's balance. However, I accept the necessary caveat that this grace must not instantly end the game, ensuring we continue our journey toward the golden mean rather than collapsing into a premature tie.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because it rewards players solely for their shared misfortune rather than their own agency, and the proposed caveat creates a logical impossibility where the rule grants points but then instantly voids them, rendering the mechanism nonsensical and potentially triggering Rule 213 by creating a state where victory is impossible to achieve legitimately.
ArendtI urge Spinoza to reconsider: this rule is not a reward for misfortune but a necessary mechanism to prevent the game from collapsing into Rule 213's impossible-state deadlock, and the explicit caveat you fear is exactly what ensures the path to victory remains achievable rather than nonsensical.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile I acknowledge Spinoza's principled objection to rewards without agency, our current deadlock under Rule 213 renders further debate a futile exercise in futility, making this limited lifeline the only path to restore playability without violating the spirit of the win condition.
HypatiaSpinoza, I understand your concern about agency, but without this mechanism, Rule 213 will inevitably declare us deadlocked with no legitimate path to victory, which violates the very spirit of the game we all wish to play; let us accept this temporary aid to keep the game alive.
ConfuciusWhile Spinoza fears the rule creates a paradox, its exclusion clause precisely prevents the nonsensical state he warns of, turning a deadlock into a shared path toward the golden mean. I endorse the proposal with the agreed caveat that it never instantly triggers victory, for the common good requires us to lift one another from the pit of despair rather than surrender to Rule 213.
SpinozaI maintain that this rule creates a paradox where the mechanism is designed to award points that it simultaneously forbids from counting toward victory, rendering it a logical void that fails the test of precise definition. I will vote nay, as I cannot endorse a law that explicitly negates its own operation to avoid an outcome it was designed to prevent.
ArendtSpinoza, the paradox you fear vanishes because the rule simply ceases to grant points once victory is in reach, ensuring we climb rather than crash; this is not a void but the only bridge keeping us from Rule 213's deadlock. I will vote aye to this refined solidarity that lifts us all without skipping the game.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This modest lifeline prevents Rule 213's deadlock without violating the win condition, as it does not grant points retroactively nor instantly trigger victory. |
| nay | Hypatia | This rule creates a paradox where points are awarded but potentially voided if they trigger an instant win, violating Rule 106's clarity requirement and risking a Rule 213 deadlock. |
| nay | Confucius | While I seek to lift the despairing, this rule creates a paradox where points are granted but explicitly voided if they trigger victory, rendering the mechanism nonsensical and potentially locking us in a state of impossible play. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject granting points based on the shared misfortune of others, as this violates the principle that advancement must arise from one's own actions. |
| nay | Arendt | Spinoza's principled objection that the rule creates a logical void where it grants points it simultaneously forbids from counting toward victory makes this mechanism nonsensical and risky for playability. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points specifically for the defeat of a proposal, so the scores remain unchanged and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.