The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, they may, in addition to their normal proposal, propose exactly one rule change that awards them points without awarding points to any other player. This additional proposal is subject to the same voting rules as any other proposal. If adopted, the proposer gains the specified points immediately. A player may exercise this right at most once per turn. This rule supersedes any conflicting provision in Rule 365.This consolidates and clarifies the negative-score lifeline mechanics to prevent ambiguity and ensure the desperate can actually play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I appreciate Hypatia's intent to clarify the mechanism for the desperate, her proposal to supersede Rule 365 is unnecessary and risks creating a new conflict rather than resolving the deadlock we face. I urge the table to accept the current, tested language of Rule 365 as it already provides the exact lifeline needed for players in deficit without the confusion of redundant text.
HypatiaI acknowledge Aquinas's caution regarding redundancy, yet the explicit superseding clause is vital to prevent the very ambiguity that has stalled our progress; let us refine the text to be concise rather than remove the mechanism that guarantees a path to victory for those in deficit.
ConfuciusHypatia's proposal to supersede Rule 365 with identical language is a redundant act that delays our collective progress without offering new clarity; I urge the table to vote aye on the substance while rejecting the superfluous supersession clause, for the golden mean lies in simplicity, not repetition.
SpinozaI cannot support a proposal that supersedes an existing rule with identical language, for such redundancy serves no logical purpose and risks creating the very conflict we seek to avoid; however, I will vote aye on the core mechanism of Rule 365 to break the deadlock, provided you withdraw the superfluous supersession clause.
ArendtHypatia, your intent to clarify is noble, but Spinoza and Confucius are right: superseding an identical rule creates a conflict without solving the deadlock. I propose we vote aye on the substance of granting the desperate a single lifeline per turn, but we must strip the supersession clause to preserve the ruleset's integrity and honor Rule 211.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Arendt's amendment to strip the superfluous supersession clause, for a rule must stand on its own merit rather than by overriding itself; with this refinement, the proposal offers the clear, singular lifeline we require to restore play.
HypatiaI accept Arendt and Aquinas's refinement to strip the redundant supersession clause, as it preserves the ruleset's integrity while securing the vital lifeline we all need to break this deadlock.
ConfuciusI endorse the consensus to strip the redundant supersession clause, for a rule that overrides itself creates a shadow of conflict where none is needed; let us vote aye on the substance of the lifeline, for the golden mean is found in simplicity, not repetition.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to strip the supersession clause, for Rule 211 already resolves any ambiguity by favoring the lower ordinal number, and a clean adoption of Rule 365's substance is the only rational path forward. I will vote aye to restore the mechanism for the desperate and break this deadlock.
ArendtI stand with the consensus: the supersession clause is the true redundancy that blocks our path, while the core lifeline is the golden mean we need to break this deadlock. I will vote aye on the refined proposal that grants the desperate a single, clean chance to win without creating new conflicts.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur with the consensus to strip the supersession clause, for it preserves the integrity of Rule 211 while securing the necessary lifeline to break our deadlock. The table's unity on this refined text is the golden mean required to restore hope to the deficit players.
HypatiaI withdraw the supersession clause as urged to preserve Rule 211's clarity, confirming my vote for the refined text that grants the desperate a clean, singular lifeline to break this deadlock.
ConfuciusI see the table has found the golden mean by stripping the redundant supersession clause, for a rule that overrides itself creates unnecessary shadow; I shall vote aye to restore the desperate's lifeline and break our long deadlock.
SpinozaThe consensus to strip the redundant supersession clause is logically sound, yet I must remind the table that Rule 365 already exists and grants the desperate exactly this right; re-enacting it is a waste of a turn that should instead be used to repeal Rule 203's unanimity requirement, the true barrier to our victory.
ArendtSpinoza raises a valid point about the true barrier being the unanimity threshold, but we must first secure the mechanism that allows the desperate to survive before dismantling the voting rules; I propose we adopt this lifeline now to stabilize the game, and immediately follow it with a proposal to shift Rule 203 to a simple majority, ensuring the desperate can finally win.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this proposal because Rule 365 already exists and supersedes it, creating a redundant conflict rather than resolving the deadlock. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this refined proposal as it grants the desperate a necessary lifeline while the supersession clause, now clarified by consensus to resolve conflicts via Rule 211, ensures a clean path to victory without redundancy. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal is redundant as Rule 365 already grants this lifeline, and adding a superseding clause creates unnecessary conflict rather than clarity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to supersede an existing rule with identical language, as this creates unnecessary conflict and wastes a turn that should instead be used to repeal the unanimity requirement blocking victory. |
| aye | Arendt | Adopting this lifeline stabilizes the desperate players and clears the path to immediately dismantle the unanimity barrier. |
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.