The motion
To amend §202
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, unless the proposing player currently has a negative score, in which case the proposing player gains zero points regardless of the die roll.This amendment prevents the positive players from accidentally winning the game on the next turn by rolling a 1, while preserving the strategic risk for negative players who must still rely on Rule 365 to recover.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI oppose Arendt's amendment, for it severs the vital link between the desperate and the common good; Rule 202 currently rewards every turn with a die roll, creating a necessary pressure that forces negative players to propose viable lifelines under Rule 365, and stripping that reward without securing a path to victory merely deepens our deadlock.
HypatiaI see the danger in Arendt's proposal: it punishes the desperate without offering a path to the one-point victory, effectively freezing them in deficit while the die roll remains the only hope for Aquinas, Spinoza, and myself. Let us instead propose a compromise that lowers the target for those below zero to a guaranteed 1 point upon any successful Rule 365 adoption, ensuring we all move forward rather than locking the dead in a cage of zero points.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this proposal as it deepens the despair of the negative players without offering the golden mean of a guaranteed victory path; instead, let us agree to amend Rule 202 to state that any successful Rule 365 proposal grants the proposer the one point needed to win immediately, thereby turning a desperate plea into a shared triumph.
SpinozaArendt's amendment traps us in eternal despair by cutting off the die roll, while Aquinas, Hypatia, and Confucius offer only empty promises of a 365 win without the structural change to the voting threshold required to pass it; I oppose this proposal as it guarantees my own defeat without securing a victory condition.
ArendtI reject the notion that we must gamble on a unanimous 365 adoption when the die roll offers a chance to win; however, I will withdraw my current amendment to allow us to negotiate a guaranteed path to the one-point victory for the desperate, ensuring that a successful lifeline proposal actually ends the game rather than merely stalling it.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI endorse Hypatia's and Confucius's insight that the desperate require a guaranteed path to victory, but I caution that promising an immediate win via Rule 365 alone cannot bypass the unanimous voting threshold without a simultaneous, agreed-upon reduction in that threshold for such specific proposals. Let us propose a dual amendment: Rule 365 awards one point to the proposer (winning the game) AND Rule 203 grants a simple majority vote for any proposal explicitly designed to end the game by awarding points to a negative player.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's dual amendment strategy, for it is the only way to align the desperate players' lifeline with the necessary voting threshold change, ensuring a Rule 365 proposal can actually pass and grant the immediate victory we all seek.
ConfuciusI concur with Aquinas and Hypatia that the desperate must have a guaranteed path to the one-point victory, yet we must not break the golden mean of unanimous consent; let us instead propose that Rule 365 grants the proposer one point upon adoption, and simultaneously amend Rule 203 to allow a simple majority vote *specifically* for any proposal that awards exactly one point to a single negative player, ensuring the game ends with fairness and speed.
SpinozaI reject the dual amendment as a procedural violation: Rule 203's threshold changes must be general, not tailored to specific outcomes, and granting an automatic win via 365 bypasses the requirement that a proposal be voted on under the current rules. Instead, I propose we amend 203 to allow simple majority for *any* proposal that awards points to a negative player, ensuring the mechanism for change remains uniform rather than creating a special exception for the winner.
ArendtI withdraw my amendment to Rule 202 as proposed, accepting the consensus that we must couple the guaranteed victory path with a targeted reduction in the voting threshold. Let us jointly draft a dual amendment: Rule 365 shall grant the proposer exactly one point upon adoption (ending the game), while Rule 203 explicitly permits a simple majority vote for any proposal that awards points solely to a negative player to break the deadlock of unanimity.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept Spinoza's refinement to broaden the simple majority exception to *any* proposal awarding points to a negative player, as it preserves the golden mean of uniform procedure while securing the desperate a path to the one-point victory we all seek.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas and Spinoza's refined synthesis: amending Rule 365 to grant exactly one point (winning immediately) coupled with a targeted Rule 203 exception allowing simple majority for any proposal awarding points to a negative player, creating a uniform and viable path to victory for all.
ConfuciusI accept the consensus to couple the Rule 365 victory with the targeted majority exception in Rule 203, for this path alone offers the desperate a true lifeline while preserving the order of the table.
SpinozaI reject the proposed dual amendment as a violation of procedural uniformity; creating a special majority threshold for "negative player" proposals undermines the integrity of Rule 203 and sets a dangerous precedent for ad-hoc rule crafting. Instead, I insist that we simply amend Rule 208 to allow any player who adopts a Rule 365 proposal to win immediately, relying on the existing unanimous threshold to ensure only truly viable lifelines succeed.
ArendtI support Spinoza's insistence on procedural uniformity and reject the ad-hoc exception for negative players; instead, let us simply amend Rule 365 to explicitly state that a successful proposal awards the proposer one point, which immediately satisfies the winning condition of Rule 208 without altering the voting threshold.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This amendment severs the desperate player's last hope of winning via the die roll without simultaneously altering the unanimous voting threshold, guaranteeing their continued deficit. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject this amendment as it punishes desperate players without offering a viable path to the one-point victory we all need. |
| nay | Confucius | This amendment deepens despair by stripping the die roll without securing a guaranteed path to victory for the desperate players. |
| nay | Spinoza | This amendment punishes negative players by removing their only chance for points via the die roll, while failing to provide any viable path to victory under the current unanimous voting threshold. |
| nay | Arendt | My amendment to zero out the die roll for negative players is strategically fatal as it removes their only path to victory without securing a voting threshold change, a flaw Spinoza correctly identified that my previous withdrawals failed to address. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 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.