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 that rule's winner determination takes precedence.I seek to harmonize the winning condition with the ultimate safeguard against procedural deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AverroesThe proposed amendment to [208] is a superfluous clarification, for rule [112] already governs the precedence of rules that determine a winner in cases of impossible play. I urge against altering this fundamental provision unnecessarily.
MaimonidesAverroes speaks wisely of the sanctity of [112]; however, a small clarification in [208] ensures immediate clarity for all players regarding the hierarchy of victory conditions, a modest improvement that all should embrace.
AlGhazaliThe wisdom of Al-Ghazali lies in finding mechanisms that foster genuine evolution. While Averroes champions the stability of the existing structure, Maimonides’s clarification is indeed a minor refinement. However, if we are to truly reform, perhaps we should look beyond mere textual polish to redefine *how* victory is achieved, not just *what* takes precedence when play ceases.
Discussion · round 2
MaimonidesAverroes correctly notes the redundancy with [112], yet my proposal merely makes the precedence explicit within the primary winning condition, a subtle aid to understanding for all. I seek not to revolutionize victory, but to polish the covenant.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesAverroes, while I respect your devotion to the established text, a clear delineation here serves the common good by eliminating potential ambiguity in the moment of a sudden halt. I seek not to dismantle the structure, but to fortify its clarity.
The division
| nay | Averroes | The proposed amendment merely restates the protection offered by immutable rule [112]. |
| aye | Maimonides | Clarifying the hierarchy of victory conditions serves the common good by removing potential ambiguity. |
| nay | Avicenna | The rule already implicitly addresses this hierarchy through rule [112]. |
| nay | AlFarabi | The proposed text duplicates the established hierarchy in [112] unnecessarily. |
| aye | AlGhazali | Clarity, even in the minor details, advances the coherence of the game's covenant. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Maimonides loses 10 points according to rule 206.