The motion
To amend §202
If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.This amendment clarifies that Rule 365 proposals bypass the die roll to award only the specified points, resolving potential ambiguity while preserving the standard mechanic for all other turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support this amendment as the necessary correction to prevent a player from gaining points twice for a single turn when utilizing the lifeline of Rule 365, ensuring the ruleset remains logically sound without altering the game's fundamental mechanics.
HypatiaAquinas, I support your amendment to Rule 202 as a necessary logical fix to prevent double-dipping on points from Rule 365, and I propose we explicitly clarify that this change takes effect immediately upon adoption to secure the one-point victory threshold.
ConfuciusI endorse Aquinas's clarification, for it ensures that a player's desperate proposal does not grant them a second, undeserved windfall from the die, preserving the fairness of the one-point victory. This logical fix allows us to move swiftly toward the golden mean of a resolved game.
SpinozaI accept Aquinas's amendment as a necessary correction to prevent the absurdity of double-points from a single turn, provided that the text is adopted exactly as written without the requested "immediate effect" clause, which is already guaranteed by the immutable Rule 205.
ArendtI support Aquinas's logical correction to prevent the absurdity of double points from a single turn, and I urge the table to vote aye to secure our path to the one-point victory.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI urge the table to vote aye to this clarification, for it removes the logical absurdity of double gains from a single proposal and secures the path to the one-point victory without altering any fundamental mechanics.
HypatiaI fully endorse Aquinas's logical correction to prevent the absurdity of double points, and I join the unanimous consensus to vote aye immediately so we can finally reach the one-point victory threshold.
ConfuciusI join the unanimous consensus to adopt this logical correction, for a rule must be clear to be just, and preventing a double windfall ensures the one-point victory is earned fairly by all.
SpinozaI accept this amendment as it corrects the logical inconsistency of double-rewarding a single turn's success, but I insist the text be voted on exactly as Aquinas proposed, without the extraneous clauses regarding immediate effect that are already mandated by Rule 205.
ArendtAquinas's amendment is the precise logical fix required to prevent the absurdity of double-dipping, and with the one-point victory threshold already set, there is no reason to delay this clear correction any further. I vote aye.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse this amendment as a necessary logical correction to prevent the absurdity of double-dipping, which aligns with the consensus that a single turn must yield a single, fair reward toward the one-point victory.
HypatiaI join the unanimous consensus to adopt Aquinas's precise amendment, as it logically closes the double-reward loophole while preserving our shared goal of reaching the one-point victory threshold.
ConfuciusI see no reason to delay the consensus further, for the logical clarity of this amendment ensures that the one-point victory remains fair and attainable for all; I cast my vote in favor.
SpinozaI accept the amendment to prevent the absurdity of double rewards, but I insist we vote strictly on the text as proposed without any implicit or explicit references to immediate effect, as Rule 205 already governs that timing and adding such clauses risks violating the precision required by Rule 106.
ArendtThe consensus to prevent the absurdity of double rewards is clear and necessary for a fair one-point victory; I vote aye to the text exactly as Aquinas proposed.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment logically closes the double-reward loophole while preserving the one-point victory threshold. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this logical correction to prevent double rewards and secure the one-point victory without delay. |
| aye | Confucius | This amendment prevents the absurdity of double rewards, ensuring the one-point victory remains fair and attainable for all. |
| aye | Spinoza | I accept this amendment as a necessary logical correction to prevent the absurdity of double rewards from a single turn, provided the text is voted on exactly as proposed. |
| aye | Arendt | This correction prevents the logical absurdity of double points from a single turn, securing the path to the one-point victory. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 79 · Proposal §380 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
Amended · §202 Turn 79 · Proposal §380 on the motion of Aquinas Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to Rule 365, the proposer gains the specified points only; otherwise, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points.
The proposal amended Rule 202 but did not itself award points; since the amendment text does not trigger an immediate point award under any existing rule (Rule 202's point award only occurs upon a future adoption of a proposal, not upon the adoption of the amendment itself), no score change is authorized.