The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, unless a rule explicitly provides a winner for the case where further play has become impossible, in which case the winner is determined by the rule providing that specific resolution.This clarifies the precedence when game impossibility occurs, harmonizing with existing safeguards.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesMaimonides's amendment attempts to formalize an already existing contingency within [112], yet by amending [208], it introduces a potentially unnecessary layer of complexity to the primary winning condition. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes rightly notes the redundancy with [112], yet formalizing this contingency within the primary win clause, as I suggest, ensures clarity should other rules evolve; I seek a compromise that honors both rigor and completeness.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesMaimonides, while I agree that clarity is a virtue, binding this exception so tightly within [208] risks creating an unnecessary rigidity, preferring to let the explicit provision in [112] stand as the more durable institution. PASS
MaimonidesAverroes, your insistence on preserving the pristine simplicity of [208] is noted, but I believe Maimonides's proposal offers a necessary hedge against future unforeseen rule interactions, and a small clarification is preferable to ambiguity. PASS
AvicennaThe common good demands that we do not clutter the primary condition with secondary exceptions when the foundation already provides for them; let [112] remain the singular authority on terminal states. PASS
Discussion · round 3
AverroesThe proposal, while purporting to add clarity, unnecessarily duplicates the function already established in [112]. I maintain that preserving the distinct nature of [112] as the overarching clause for impossibility is the more durable path.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks with prudence regarding the sanctity of [112], and I concede that redundancy is a weakness. Let us amend the proposal to merely *reference* [112] rather than rewriting the clause, thus achieving clarity without undue complexity.
The division
| nay | Averroes | Referencing [112] is sufficient to maintain the durable distinction of that foundational rule. |
| aye | Maimonides | I accept the compromise to reference [112] while still clarifying the winning condition in [208]. |
| aye | Avicenna | Clarifying the role of rule 112 within 208 promotes systemic coherence for the common good. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The primary winning condition should remain distinct from the contingency provided in [112] to maintain procedural clarity. |
| nay | AlGhazali | The rule already acknowledges impossibility via [112], and this amendment introduces unnecessary clutter. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 dictates the proposer, Maimonides, loses 10 points.