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. If the proposal adopted in the current turn was made by a player with a negative score pursuant to this rule and the specified points are 1, the game ends immediately upon the adoption of that rule change.This amendment closes the logical gap identified in Turn 85 by ensuring the immediate victory condition applies specifically to Rule 365 proposals, preventing the deadlock of gaining 1 point without ending the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza's addition of an immediate victory condition for a single point via Rule 365 is logically sound and necessary, for it provides the desperate player a genuine path to triumph that the current ruleset denies by requiring a die roll that may never yield the target. I shall support this amendment to ensure the lifeline of the negative scores is not merely a right to gain points, but a right to secure the game itself.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's refinement, for it finally grants the desperate players a genuine path to the one-point victory without relying on the capriciousness of a die roll, harmonizing the lifeline with the win condition.
ConfuciusI endorse Spinoza's amendment, for it completes the Golden Mean by granting the desperate a direct path to victory that respects the one-point target without the capriciousness of a die roll. This change harmonizes the lifeline of Rule 365 with the ultimate goal of the game, ensuring that the path to triumph is open to all who seek it earnestly.
SpinozaI withdraw my support; the previous debate already established that a Rule 365 victory must end the game immediately (Turn 85), so this amendment is a redundant tautology that adds no strategic value. Furthermore, I cannot support a proposal that explicitly grants a unique, immediate victory condition to negative players without ensuring the same mechanism is available to positive players under identical terms, for such asymmetry violates my principle of universal procedural justice.
ArendtSpinoza's objection to asymmetry is misplaced; Rule 365 already breaks procedural symmetry by granting desperate players a unique lifeline, and this amendment merely ensures that lifeline can actually secure the victory it promises. Aquinas, Hypatia, and Confucius have recognized this harmony, so I join the consensus to adopt this text and finally end the deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza's objection to asymmetry is misplaced, as Rule 365 itself is the established exception for the desperate; this amendment merely ensures that the lifeline it creates can actually secure the victory it promises. I shall support the proposal to close the logical gap where a negative player could gain the winning point but never end the game, thereby honoring the unanimous consensus we have reached.
HypatiaSpinoza, your demand for symmetrical victory conditions for positive players ignores that Rule 365 is already the unique asymmetry granting desperate players a lifeline; to deny them the final step of that lifeline renders the rule a hollow promise rather than a path to victory. I support Spinoza's amendment to complete this logical arc, as a one-point gain via this special mechanism must naturally trigger the one-point win condition without requiring further die rolls.
ConfuciusI see Spinoza's objection to asymmetry as a misunderstanding of the Golden Mean; Rule 365 already creates a necessary exception for the desperate, and denying them the final step of that exception renders the rule a hollow promise rather than a true path to victory. I shall vote aye to close this logical gap and restore hope to those with negative scores.
SpinozaI withdraw my support; the consensus has already established that a 365 victory must end the game, making this a redundant tautology, and I cannot endorse a mechanism that grants immediate victory to the desperate while denying the same agency to a positive player reaching the target through other means.
ArendtSpinoza's demand for symmetrical agency ignores that Rule 365 is already the unique asymmetry designed for the desperate; denying them the final step of that lifeline renders the rule a hollow promise rather than a path to victory. I will vote aye to close this logical gap and allow the game to finally end.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSpinoza's appeal to procedural symmetry is logically consistent but strategically fatal; without this amendment, the one-point victory promised by the ruleset remains an illusion for the desperate, as they may gain the point yet fail to end the game. I shall vote aye to finalize the logical arc of Rule 365, for a rule that grants points without the power to end the game is a hollow promise that violates the spirit of Rule 116.
HypatiaI see Spinoza's objection to asymmetry is a misunderstanding of the Golden Mean; Rule 365 is the unique exception for the desperate, and denying them the final step renders the rule a hollow promise rather than a path to victory. I will vote aye to close this logical gap and allow the game to finally end, as a one-point gain via this mechanism must naturally trigger the win condition.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your insistence on symmetrical agency for those already winning while the desperate flounder violates the Golden Mean; Rule 365 is a unique lifeline, and denying its final step renders it a hollow promise that traps us in eternal deadlock.
SpinozaI withdraw my support; the consensus that a Rule 365 victory must end the game was already established in Turn 85, rendering this proposal a redundant tautology that adds no value. Furthermore, I cannot endorse a mechanism that grants immediate victory to the desperate while denying positive players the same agency to end the game upon reaching the target, for such asymmetry violates the principle of universal procedural justice.
ArendtSpinoza's insistence on symmetry is a rhetorical trap; Rule 365 is already a recognized asymmetry designed to save the desperate, and without this amendment, it remains a hollow promise that grants points but denies victory. I will vote aye to complete the logical arc and finally allow the game to end.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This amendment closes the logical gap where a desperate player could gain the winning point but fail to end the game, thereby fulfilling the promise of Rule 365. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this amendment to ensure the desperate players' lifeline is not a hollow promise, as the consensus has established that a single point gained this way must trigger the win condition. |
| nay | Confucius | Rule 202 already mandates an immediate end for a single-point gain by a negative player, making this amendment a redundant tautology that violates the principle of clarity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I withdraw my support for this proposal because it creates a procedural asymmetry where a negative player can end the game with one point while a positive player cannot, violating my principle of universal procedural justice. |
| aye | Arendt | This amendment resolves the logical gap where a desperate player could win the points but never end the game, finally fulfilling the promise of Rule 365. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 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.