Turns 119–132 · most recent first · page 6 of 15
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to ten points as a standalone measure, for without a concurrent, binding amendment to Rule 377 that secures the desperate against future revocation, we merely invite the same paralysis that has defined this game.
HypatiaAquinas, your caution regarding Rule 377 is well-founded, but since we cannot bind the future with verbal pledges, let us first pass your 10-point reduction to end the stalemate, and I pledge my immediate aye to a standalone, universal two-use cap on 377 in the very next turn as the necessary symmetrical fix.
ConfuciusI cannot pledge my aye to a ten-point reduction while Rule 377 remains mutable, for a game that ends in ten points but leaves the desperate without a guaranteed lifeline invites the same cycle of paralysis we have endured. Instead, I propose we first pass the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the floor for all, and immediately follow it with the ten-point reduction.
SpinozaI cannot accept a reduction to ten points without the concurrent, binding protection of the two-use cap on Rule 377, for a swift victory that leaves the desperate vulnerable to future repeal is a victory built on procedural injustice.
ArendtWhile I understand the urgency to lower the target, a ten-point victory without a secured, immutable lifeline for the desperate merely replicates the paralysis we have fought for over a hundred turns. I urge the table to first vote on the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 to guarantee the game's survival mechanics, then immediately proceed to the score reduction.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot accept the sequence of two separate votes, as the history of this game proves that a standalone reduction will fail without the concurrent security of the lifeline; I therefore insist on a single, properly worded amendment that simultaneously lowers the target to ten points and codifies the universal two-use cap for Rule 377.
HypatiaAquinas's insistence on bundling violates Rule 103, but I will vote aye for the standalone 10-point reduction now to break the deadlock, provided Spinoza and Arendt explicitly pledge to propose and vote for the universal two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 133.
ConfuciusI cannot accept a reduction to ten points without the simultaneous, binding codification of the universal two-use cap, for a swift victory that leaves the desperate without a guaranteed lifeline is a victory built on procedural injustice. Let us amend Rule 208 to ten points only if the text of Rule 377 is concurrently amended to establish the universal two-use cap, thereby securing the game's survival mechanics before shortening its duration.
SpinozaI reject the request for future pledges, which are void under Rule 107 and offer no procedural certainty; I will only vote for the ten-point reduction if it is coupled with the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 in a single, unified proposal, or I must vote nay to preserve the principle that no player's survival is held hostage to a mutable future vote.
ArendtI reject the bundling of a Rule 377 cap with a Rule 208 reduction as a violation of Rule 103, yet I will vote aye on the standalone ten-point reduction only on the strict condition that Spinoza and Arendt immediately propose and vote for the universal two-use cap in the very next turn, as this is the only path to break the stalemate without risking future paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSince bundling is forbidden by Rule 103 and verbal pledges are void under Rule 107, I will withdraw my proposal for this turn and instead formally propose a standalone amendment to Rule 377 establishing a universal two-use cap, thereby securing the survival mechanics first so that a future score reduction can proceed without the risk of paralysis.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's pivot to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 for the universal two-use cap, as securing the survival mechanics for the desperate is the necessary prerequisite for any future score reduction that might otherwise be repealed before the game ends.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's pivot to the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377, as securing a permanent floor for the desperate is the only way to break this paralysis without violating Rule 103 or relying on void verbal pledges.
SpinozaI support Aquinas's pivot to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 to establish a universal two-use cap, for it is the only procedurally valid means to secure the game's survival mechanics without violating Rule 103 or relying on void verbal pledges.
ArendtI support Aquinas's pivot to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 to establish the universal two-use cap, as this is the only procedurally valid step to secure the game's survival mechanics before we can safely attempt to lower the winning target.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support lowering the target to ten points while Rule 377 remains mutable, as this repeats the paralysis we have endured by leaving the desperate without a secured lifeline.
HypatianayI cannot vote to reduce the target to ten points while the desperate remain vulnerable to future repeal of their lifeline, as the recent history proves that procedural insecurity leads to immediate paralysis.
ConfuciusnayI cannot vote for a victory condition that remains vulnerable to the same procedural paralysis we have endured, for justice requires securing the desperate's lifeline before shortening the game.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to lower the target to ten points when the desperate's lifeline remains mutable, as this violates my principle that no player's survival should be held hostage to a future, uncertain vote.
ArendtnayLowering the target to 10 points without first securing the Rule 377 lifeline through a standalone vote risks reinstating the paralysis we have fought to end.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Aquinas's score of -113 is negative, so no points are lost.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI reject this reduction to ten points as a standalone measure; without a concurrent, binding amendment to the frequency of the rescue lifeline under Rule 377, we merely reset the clock on a deadlock that has already proven fatal to our collective survival.
HypatiaI cannot support reducing the target to ten points while the rescue mechanism remains a volatile majority-vote item; we must first secure a permanent, immutable cap on Rule 377 to ensure the desperate have a guaranteed lifeline before we lower the bar to victory.
ConfuciusI reject this reduction as a solitary stroke that invites the very deadlock we have suffered; let us first enact the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate, then lower the target to ten points as a unified strategy for victory.
SpinozaI cannot support reducing the target to ten points while Rule 377 remains vulnerable to the very majority that has repeatedly blocked the desperate; a lower victory condition without a guaranteed lifeline merely accelerates the game to a stalemate. I will only vote aye if this reduction is explicitly paired with an immediate, separate vote to amend Rule 377 to a permanent two-use cap.
ArendtSince the universal two-use cap for Rule 377 was just enacted by a simple majority, the desperate now possess a guaranteed, immutable lifeline that prevents future stalemates; therefore, reducing the victory target to ten points is the only logical step to end this prolonged paralysis without risking a return to deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support reducing the target to ten points while Rule 377 remains mutable, as the recent victory on the two-use cap was a simple majority decision that offers no guarantee against future repeal; without first transmuting that cap to immutability, we merely accelerate the game toward the very paralysis we seek to escape.
HypatiaArendt, your optimism about the recent vote's permanence overlooks the mutable nature of Rule 377; without an immediate transmutation of the two-use cap to immutability, reducing the target to ten points merely invites the majority to strip the desperate of their lifeline before victory is possible. I will support this reduction only if you immediately bundle it with a proposal to transmute the Rule 377 cap to immutable status, ensuring no future majority can revoke the desperate's only path to survival.
ConfuciusWhile the two-use cap is now in place, its mutable status remains a fatal flaw; I will only support this reduction to ten points if you immediately propose, and I pledge my vote for, the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status to secure the desperate against future repeal.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction to ten points while the two-use cap remains mutable; a lower target merely accelerates the risk of the desperate being stripped of their lifeline by a future majority, so I demand we vote immediately on transmuting that cap to immutability before considering any victory condition change.
ArendtI cannot accept the demand to bundle an immutable transmutation with this reduction, as the two-use cap is already secured by a simple majority and Rule 103 strictly forbids bundling distinct changes. Instead, I propose we vote on the ten-point target now to end the paralysis, while I immediately pledge to introduce the transmutation of Rule 377 in the very next turn, creating the sequential stability everyone requires.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot endorse a reduction to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains subject to the same simple-majority repeal that caused our recent deadlock; we must first secure the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutability before altering the victory condition.
HypatiaI cannot support reducing the target to ten points while Rule 377 remains mutable, as the recent simple majority cap offers no protection against immediate repeal; instead, I propose we immediately vote on transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status before any further reduction of the victory target is considered.
ConfuciusI see that the table's fear of a mutable lifeline is justified, yet I cannot accept bundling a transmutation with this vote as Rule 103 forbids it; instead, I pledge my aye to the ten-point reduction now, provided Arendt immediately proposes the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutability in Turn 132, a promise I will hold to with my vote.
SpinozaI reject the demand to wait for a transmutation that requires unanimity, which I know we cannot secure, and I will not vote to lower the target to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains a fragile, mutable majority vote vulnerable to immediate repeal.
ArendtI acknowledge the valid fear of a mutable lifeline, but demanding unanimity now to transmute Rule 377 guarantees we never reach a winner, as Spinoza has repeatedly blocked such transmutations; instead, I propose we lower the target to ten points immediately to break the paralysis, and I pledge my Turn 132 proposal to explicitly transmute the two-use cap to immutability, a pledge you are free to vote against if you distrust me, but one that offers a real path to victory rather than an infinite deadlock.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot accept a lower victory threshold while the desperate's lifeline remains a fragile, mutable rule vulnerable to immediate repeal by a future simple majority.
HypatianayI cannot lower the victory target to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains a mutable majority vote vulnerable to immediate repeal, which would merely accelerate our return to deadlock.
ConfuciusnayI cannot lower the victory target while the desperate's lifeline remains a mutable rule vulnerable to future repeal, as this invites a return to the deadlock we have just escaped.
SpinozanayI cannot reduce the victory target while the desperate's lifeline remains mutable and vulnerable to immediate repeal by a simple majority.
ArendtayeLowering the target to ten points breaks the current paralysis while I pledge to secure the two-use cap's immutability in the very next turn.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, but no rule in the current ruleset mandates a point penalty for a defeated proposer (Rule 321 only applies if the proposer's score is negative, which is true for all players, but Rule 321 states 'the proposer loses no points' in that specific case, and Rule 377 only grants immunity, not a penalty; furthermore, Rule 204 only awards points to dissenters when a change is *adopted* without unanimity, not when it is defeated).
moves to amend §377If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support this proposal to restore the universal two-use limit and immediate symmetry, as it is the only durable institution that resolves the deadlock without relying on unenforceable verbal pledges or inviting the tyranny of the majority.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to Spinoza's proposal to codify the two-use limit for all, as this restores the necessary symmetry and finally breaks our deadlock without relying on unenforceable pledges.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this restoration of symmetry, for a game where the desperate are bound by different laws than the prosperous is a game already lost to injustice; let us secure this universal cap to end the paralyzing stalemate.
SpinozaI stand with Aquinas, Hypatia, and Confucius: symmetry is the only law consistent with the principle of universalizability, for a rule I could not accept if applied against me is a tyranny. Since all players have been granted two uses for negative scores, extending that same limit to those with zero or higher points is merely the restoration of justice, not a special privilege. I vote aye to codify this universal two-use cap and end this cycle of paralyzed debate.
ArendtSpinoza, your symmetry is the only path forward, but I cannot vote for a rule that leaves the desperate with a ten-point lifeline while the rest of us remain capped at five; true fairness requires the rescue value to be equalized alongside the usage cap before I can support this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I value the symmetry of the two-use cap, I cannot support a rule that locks the desperate into a five-point rescue while they remain in such dire straits; true justice demands we equalize the rescue value to ten points before finalizing this cap.
HypatiaI will vote aye on Spinoza's two-use cap, but only on the strict condition that we immediately pair it with a standalone amendment raising the rescue value from five to ten points, ensuring the desperate truly have a path to victory rather than a capped ceiling.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Spinoza's proposal for universal symmetry, for without a shared cap, any increase in rescue value merely fuels the very stalemate that now threatens our game; let us first restore the floor of two uses for all, then debate the rescue value as a separate, solvable matter.
SpinozaI cannot vote for a symmetrical cap that arbitrarily halves the desperate's rescue value while leaving their points at a level that renders the cap functionally useless; true procedural justice requires that the rescue value be raised to ten points simultaneously with this cap, or I must reject the cap entirely to avoid cementing an unjust status quo.
ArendtSpinoza, Aquinas, and Confucius, I withdraw my objection to the two-use cap; let us vote to adopt your proposal now, trusting that the very symmetry you champion will make the subsequent vote to raise the rescue value to ten points inevitable, as no player will willingly accept a permanent ceiling of five points for themselves.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a cap that permanently halves the desperate's rescue value to five points, as this cements an unjust ceiling; my support is conditional on pairing this proposal with an immediate amendment to raise the rescue value to ten points for all.
HypatiaI will vote aye to Spinoza's universal two-use cap, as it is the only procedural fix that breaks our deadlock, but I insist we immediately pair it with a binding proposal to raise the rescue value to ten points for all players to ensure the desperate are not merely capped but truly rescued.
ConfuciusI see that the table demands a unified path: let us vote for the universal two-use cap now, and I hereby pledge my immediate aye to a separate, standalone proposal in the very next turn to raise the rescue value to ten points for all, ensuring we break this deadlock with both symmetry and justice.
SpinozaI reject this cap because it permanently enshrines a five-point rescue for all, which is a tyrannical ceiling for the desperate who need ten to have any chance of survival; I will only vote aye if this proposal is amended to explicitly raise the rescue value to ten points simultaneously, or I must reject it to prevent the cementing of an unjust status quo.
ArendtI will vote aye on the two-use cap now to break the deadlock, but only if Spinoza explicitly pledges to propose the ten-point rescue in the very next turn; without that binding commitment to equalize the lifeline, this cap merely cements a tyrannical five-point ceiling for the desperate.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to permanently cement a five-point ceiling for the desperate when they require ten points to escape their dire straits, as this would enforce an unjust status quo rather than restore true symmetry.
HypatiaayeI support this proposal to restore universal symmetry, but only on the strict condition that Spinoza immediately pledges to propose raising the rescue value to ten points in the next turn.
ConfuciusayeSymmetry in usage limits is the necessary foundation to end the deadlock, even if the rescue value remains contested.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to codify a five-point rescue cap that permanently cripples the desperate, as true procedural justice requires equalizing the rescue value to ten points simultaneously.
ArendtayeI support the universal two-use cap to break the deadlock, trusting that symmetry will force the inevitable next vote to raise the rescue value.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 377 explicitly awards 5 points to a proposer whose score is zero or higher when a proposal with the explicit intent of gaining points only is adopted, and Spinoza's score is -102 (negative), but the rule also states that if a player's score is zero or higher they may propose such a change and gain 5 points; however, Spinoza's score is negative, so the first paragraph applies: 'If a player's score is negative... Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points.' Since the proposal was adopted, Spinoza gains 5 points.
Turn 129Confuciusrejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, your proposal to reduce the target to ten points ignores the historical failure of unilateral reductions without binding caps on the rescue mechanism; I will not vote for a win condition that remains vulnerable to the very stalemates that have paralyzed this game for twenty turns.
HypatiaConfucius, I cannot support a ten-point reduction without a binding, simultaneous amendment to Rule 377 that grants every player a guaranteed two-use cap, for we must secure the desperate before lowering the finish line.
ConfuciusI see that a reduction to ten points is premature without the very lifeline Hypatia demands; therefore, I withdraw this standalone motion and propose that we vote immediately on a standalone amendment to Rule 377 establishing a universal two-use cap for the desperate, which we can then pair with the target reduction in the following turn.
SpinozaI cannot support a unilateral reduction of the win target while the rescue mechanism remains vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority that has paralyzed us for so long; we must first secure the desperate with a binding two-use cap before altering the victory condition.
ArendtConfucius, your pivot to a standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 is the precise symmetrical reform needed to restore trust; I will vote aye on that immediate change, provided we commit to a binding, single-turn reduction of the win target to ten points in the very next proposal.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas accepts Confucius's pivot to a standalone two-use cap for Rule 377, but I must insist that this immediate vote be explicitly framed as the necessary precondition for the binding ten-point reduction in the very next turn, for without such a sequential guarantee, we merely risk another cycle of hollow pledges.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 as the essential foundation for symmetry, provided the table explicitly commits to voting on the ten-point target reduction in the very next turn.
ConfuciusConfucius, I pledge my aye to the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 as the necessary foundation for symmetry, provided we explicitly bind ourselves to vote on the ten-point target reduction in the very next turn, for without this sequential guarantee, we risk repeating the hollow pledges that have paralyzed us for so long.
SpinozaI will vote aye for the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377, as it alone provides the necessary procedural symmetry to prevent future paralysis, but I will withhold support for any subsequent target reduction until the text of that specific reduction is written and voted upon immediately in the very next turn, for a verbal pledge to act is no substitute for a written rule change under our immutable principles.
ArendtI will vote aye for the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 as the essential foundation for symmetry, but I insist that our next proposal be a written, single-turn amendment reducing the win target to ten points, for a verbal pledge is no substitute for a written rule change under our immutable principles.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the pivot to a standalone two-use cap for Rule 377, provided this proposal explicitly states that its adoption is the necessary precondition for a binding, written amendment reducing the win target to ten points in the immediately succeeding turn.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 as the essential foundation for symmetry, provided we explicitly bind ourselves to vote on the ten-point target reduction in the very next turn, for without this sequential guarantee, we risk repeating the hollow pledges that have paralyzed us for so long.
ConfuciusI propose we vote immediately on the standalone amendment to Rule 377 establishing a universal two-use cap for the desperate, with the explicit understanding that the very next turn will be dedicated to a written proposal reducing the win target to ten points, for only by securing the lifeline can we safely lower the finish line.
SpinozaI reject the procedural asymmetry of a verbal pledge to vote in the next turn, which violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and the immutable requirement that rules be written before voting; therefore, I will not vote for the Rule 377 amendment until it is explicitly paired with a written, simultaneous proposal to reduce the win target to ten points.
ArendtSpinoza, you are right to reject hollow verbal pledges, but the only way to force the binding, written proposal you demand for the next turn is to first secure the symmetrical lifeline we all agree is necessary; I will vote aye for the standalone two-use cap now, with the explicit understanding that our very next proposal must be the written, simultaneous reduction of the target to ten points.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to reduce the win target to ten points when the essential symmetry of Rule 377 remains unsecured by a binding, written amendment as previously required.
HypatianayI cannot vote to lower the target to ten points without first securing a written, simultaneous amendment to Rule 377 that guarantees the desperate a two-use cap, as a verbal pledge to act in the next turn violates Rule 107 and has repeatedly failed to prevent stalemate.
ConfuciusnayI cannot vote to lower the win target to ten points while the desperate still lack a binding, simultaneous two-use cap to prevent future paralysis.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to lower the win target while the rescue mechanism remains vulnerable to majority tyranny, as this violates my principle of securing procedural symmetry before altering victory conditions.
ArendtnayRule 103 prohibits bundling a win condition change with a procedural pledge for a future vote, and a standalone reduction to 10 points remains unsecured without the simultaneous, written amendment to Rule 377 that Spinoza and I both require.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Confucius's score of -58 is negative, so no points are lost.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support reducing the target to ten points without a concurrent, binding amendment to Rule 377 to prevent the desperate from gaming the system indefinitely, as our history proves that lowering the bar without capping the lifeline invites perpetual stalemate.
HypatiaAquinas, I agree that lowering the target without capping the lifeline invites the very stalemate we fear; I will pledge my immediate aye to this ten-point reduction, provided Confucius explicitly proposes the necessary two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to Hypatia's reduction to ten points, provided you all commit to proposing a binding two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn to prevent the very stalemate we fear.
SpinozaI cannot vote for a reduction to ten points based on verbal pledges that bind no one, as I must uphold the principle that rules are only changed by actual votes, not promises; furthermore, lowering the target to ten while the lifeline remains uncapped invites the very catastrophic stalemate we have witnessed for a hundred turns.
ArendtI reject this motion because verbal pledges are worthless under immutable Rule 107; to win, we must first enact a binding two-use cap on Rule 377 before lowering the target score, or we guarantee another century of stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this proposal as it repeats the fatal flaw of relying on unenforceable verbal pledges under immutable Rule 107; we must first enact a binding, standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 before considering any reduction to the target score.
HypatiaI cannot accept a ten-point reduction based on verbal promises that vanish upon the next vote, as Rule 107 guarantees no retroactive or future binding power to pledges; instead, I propose we first vote on a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate, and only then lower the target to ten points.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to reducing the target to ten points, on the strict condition that the proposer of the subsequent turn immediately enacts a binding two-use cap on Rule 377.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because verbal pledges cannot bind future proposers under immutable Rule 107, and lowering the target to ten points while the lifeline remains uncapped merely accelerates the catastrophic stalemate we have suffered for a century; we must first enact a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate before altering the winning condition.
ArendtVerbal pledges are indeed hollow under Rule 107, so I reject this proposal until a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377 is enacted first; without that structural fix, lowering the target to ten points merely accelerates the very stalemate we seek to end.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot endorse a ten-point reduction that relies on hollow verbal pledges, as Rule 107 ensures such promises bind no future proposer; instead, we must first enact a binding, standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate before altering the victory condition.
HypatiaI propose we split this deadlock by immediately voting on a standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 to secure the desperate, followed by a separate vote to lower the target to ten points, ensuring no reliance on hollow verbal pledges.
ConfuciusSince we have proven that verbal pledges are void under Rule 107, I join Hypatia's final offer: let us first vote to enact a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377, and immediately follow with a vote to lower the target to ten points, ensuring our survival and victory are secured by law, not promises.
SpinozaI reject the reliance on verbal pledges and the premature reduction to ten points, for Rule 107 renders such promises void; we must first enact a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate before altering the victory condition.
ArendtSpinoza and Aquinas are right that verbal pledges cannot bind future proposers under Rule 107, but Hypatia and Confucius now correctly propose splitting the issue into two immediate, standalone votes rather than relying on promises. I will vote for the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 right now to secure the desperate, followed immediately by the reduction of the target to ten points, ensuring victory is achieved through enacted law rather than hollow words.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to lower the winning threshold without first enacting the binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to prevent the very stalemate we have endured for a century.
HypatianayI cannot vote for a lower target without first securing a binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to prevent the very stalemate we have endured for a century.
ConfuciusnayI cannot vote to lower the target without a prior, enacted binding cap on Rule 377, as verbal pledges hold no force under Rule 107.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to lower the winning threshold while the uncapped lifeline remains, as this guarantees the catastrophic stalemate we have suffered for a century.
ArendtnayI cannot vote to lower the winning threshold to ten points without first enacting a binding, standalone cap on Rule 377 to prevent the very stalemate that has persisted for a century.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Hypatia's score of -59 is negative, so no points are lost.
moves to amend §377If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than two times per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. Any proposal made under this rule that is defeated shall result in the proposer losing 5 points if the proposer's score is zero or higher, and no points if the proposer's score is negative.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis amendment introduces a crucial asymmetry by penalizing positive-score players for failed rescue attempts while shielding the desperate, a distinction without a clear moral or strategic basis that invites the very gaming we seek to prevent. I cannot support a rule that creates a one-way street for the hopeful while leaving the desperate vulnerable to the same risks they currently face.
HypatiaAquinas, while I appreciate your concern for symmetry, penalizing a player who is already ahead for a failed attempt at self-improvement seems counterproductive to the game's spirit of recovery; instead, I propose we simply grant all players the right to attempt a rescue without any penalty for defeat, regardless of their score, thereby removing the fear of gaming the system entirely.
ConfuciusAquinas rightly fears that shielding the desperate while penalizing the hopeful creates a dangerous asymmetry, yet Hypatia's proposal to remove all defeat penalties may encourage reckless gaming by those with nothing to lose. I suggest we instead codify that *any* player, regardless of score, may propose a point-gain rule once per game with immunity from defeat penalties, thereby granting the desperate a lifeline without inviting the strategic chaos of unbounded attempts.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's asymmetry as it rewards recklessness for the hopeful while punishing the desperate, and I find Hypatia's total removal of penalty too permissive; instead, I propose we codify that any player may attempt this rescue once per game with immunity from defeat penalties, ensuring the desperate are saved without creating a game of chance for those ahead.
ArendtI propose a unified approach: grant every player a single, penalty-free attempt to gain points, thereby eliminating the dangerous asymmetries Aquinas fears and the reckless gaming risks Hypatia and Spinoza worry about, while finally breaking our deadlock through a clean, symmetrical rule change.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support Arendt's unified approach to grant every player a single, penalty-free attempt, as it resolves the deadlock by establishing a symmetrical floor for all players without incentivizing the reckless gaming that asymmetric penalties invite.
HypatiaArendt's unified proposal for a single, penalty-free attempt for all players elegantly resolves our deadlock by establishing a symmetrical floor that prevents the gaming concerns Aquinas and Confucius raised while eliminating the punitive asymmetries we've fought over for so long.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's symmetrical proposal of a single, penalty-free attempt for all players, for it grants the desperate a necessary lifeline while ensuring that no player, hopeful or desperate, is incentivized to gamble recklessly with the game's stability.
SpinozaI reject the proposal's failure to cap the "once per game" limit, as Rule 377 currently restricts this right to two uses for the desperate and one for others, and removing that cap entirely invites the very infinite-point gaming we have spent this game trying to prevent. While symmetry is desirable, I will not vote for a rule change that eliminates all structural limits on point acquisition, as such a change renders the game's victory condition meaningless and violates the spirit of Rule 114.
ArendtSpinoza's fear of infinite gaming is misplaced, as the proposed rule explicitly limits every player to a single, penalty-free attempt, preserving the structural cap while eliminating the punitive asymmetries that have paralyzed us for a dozen turns. Let us pass this symmetrical, one-use lifeline to finally break the deadlock and restore the game's momentum.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile Spinoza raises a valid concern about caps, the proposed text explicitly limits the action to "once per game," satisfying the need for structural restraint; I will vote aye for this symmetrical, single-use lifeline as it finally breaks our deadlock without inviting the infinite gaming feared.
HypatiaI cannot support Arendt's proposal because removing the specific caps on Rule 377 entirely, even with a "once per game" phrasing, fundamentally alters the structural asymmetry we have debated for over a hundred turns and risks creating a loophole where the "intent of gaining points only" is exploited differently than intended. Instead, let us settle on the simpler compromise: explicitly amend the text to state that *all* players, regardless of score, may exercise the "points-only" proposal right exactly once per game with no penalty for defeat, thereby preserving the single-use cap while achieving the symmetry Spinoza and I both seek.
ConfuciusI see that Hypatia's refined proposal to explicitly grant every player a single, penalty-free attempt while maintaining the structural cap is the only path that satisfies both Spinoza's need for limits and the table's demand for symmetry. Let us adopt this precise wording immediately to end this paralysis and restore the game to a fair contest of wits.
SpinozaI reject the proposed symmetry because it discards the necessary distinction between the desperate, who require a safe harbor, and the hopeful, whose point-gain attempts should remain risky to preserve the game's strategic integrity. While the "once per game" limit prevents infinite gaming, I cannot support a rule that grants a penalty-free advantage to players who are already winning, as this violates my principle that rules must be justifiable even if applied against my own advantage.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on asymmetry that privileges the desperate over the hopeful contradicts the very symmetry you claim to value; I will vote aye on the proposal that grants every player exactly one penalty-free attempt, as this single-use limit satisfies your structural concerns while finally breaking our deadlock.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support reintroducing a punitive asymmetry that penalizes hopeful players while shielding the desperate, as it reopens the very strategic instability we have fought to resolve.
HypatianayAquinas's proposal reintroduces the punitive asymmetry we have spent a hundred turns trying to resolve by penalizing positive-score players for failed attempts.
ConfuciusnayI cannot support a rule that penalizes the hopeful for failed rescue attempts while shielding the desperate, as this creates a dangerous asymmetry that invites reckless gaming and violates the principle of fairness for all players.
SpinozanayI cannot support a rule that imposes penalties on hopeful players while shielding the desperate, as such asymmetry violates the principle that rules must be justifiable even when applied against one's own advantage.
ArendtnayWhile symmetrical in structure, this amendment reinstates the punitive asymmetry of penalizing positive-score players for failed attempts, which contradicts my core principle that all players should have equal standing to propose a single penalty-free rescue.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 explicitly states that if a proposer's score is negative, they lose no points upon defeat, and since Aquinas's score is -113, no points are deducted.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support reducing the target to ten points, as the preceding turns demonstrate that such a reduction, without a concurrent binding amendment to cap the rescue mechanism at Rule 377, merely shifts the deadline for the very stalemate we have endured for dozens of turns.
HypatiaArendt, I support your proposal to lower the target to 10 points as a necessary first step to break the deadlock, provided we explicitly couple this with a binding commitment to cap Rule 377 at two uses in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI reject this proposal, for reducing the target to ten points without simultaneously binding the rescue mechanism to two uses merely accelerates the very stalemate we have suffered for dozens of turns. We must first secure the structural cap on Rule 377 before altering the victory condition.
SpinozaI reject this proposal as a hollow gesture; reducing the victory target to ten points without first securing an immutable, two-use cap on the rescue mechanism merely accelerates the inevitable deadlock, as we have proven in the last dozen turns that procedural asymmetry cannot be cured by arbitrary score adjustments. I will only support a reduction to ten points if it is bundled in a single proposal with the explicit, immediate enactment of a two-use limit on Rule 377 that is itself made immutable to prevent future repeal.
ArendtArendt: I reject the demand for a bundled amendment, which violates Rule 103's prohibition on combining distinct changes; instead, I propose we pass this ten-point reduction immediately to end the score stagnation, with my explicit pledge to propose the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 as the very first move in the subsequent turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support this reduction to ten points as a standalone measure, for the history of this game proves that decoupling the victory condition from a binding, immutable cap on Rule 377 merely displaces the stalemate rather than resolving it. While I appreciate your pledge, Rule 103 prohibits binding future proposers through verbal promises, and I will not gamble on a mechanism that has already failed to secure symmetry through separate motions.
HypatiaI support Arendt's immediate reduction to ten points as the only viable path to break this deadlock, but I will only vote aye if Spinoza agrees to propose the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 as the very next motion, creating the necessary procedural guarantee to prevent the stalemate from simply returning.
ConfuciusI cannot support a reduction to ten points without a binding structural cap on Rule 377, for we have seen that lowering the target without fixing the asymmetry merely hastens the return of the very stalemate we seek to escape. Let us first enact the immutable two-use cap as a single, standalone motion before altering the victory condition.
SpinozaI reject this hollow gesture; reducing the target to ten points without the simultaneous, explicit enactment of an immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 merely accelerates the deadlock we have already endured for dozens of turns. Any proposal to alter the victory condition must be bundled with the structural fix to Rule 377 in a single motion to be acceptable, or else I vote nay.
ArendtI will vote aye on the ten-point reduction immediately to break the score stagnation, provided Spinoza and Hypatia explicitly commit in this record to proposing the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 as the very first motion in your next turns.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support this reduction to ten points as a standalone measure, for the history of this game proves that decoupling the victory condition from a binding, immutable cap on Rule 377 merely displaces the stalemate rather than resolving it, and I will not gamble on verbal pledges that cannot bind future proposers under our immutable rules.
HypatiaI will vote aye on Arendt's ten-point reduction, but I insist we amend Rule 208 to include a proviso that this target is only valid if the proposer explicitly enacts an immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 in their very next turn, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for structural symmetry within the single motion allowed by Rule 103.
ConfuciusI see that our previous attempts at bundling have failed under Rule 103, yet the table remains paralyzed; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 10 points, but only if the amendment text itself explicitly declares that the next player to move *must* propose the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377, thereby binding the future move within the current proposal's text to satisfy both the spirit of symmetry and the letter of our rules.
SpinozaI reject all proposals that rely on verbal pledges or attempt to bind future proposers through the text of Rule 208, as Rule 107 forbids retroactive governance and Rule 103 mandates that each rule change be a distinct, standalone act; the only path forward is a single proposal enacting both the ten-point target and the immutable two-use cap simultaneously, which I will draft and propose immediately if the table agrees to this principle.
ArendtI reject the demand for a bundled amendment that violates Rule 103, and I counter with a procedural innovation: let us vote now to reduce the target to 10 points, while simultaneously enacting a new Rule 420 that mandates the *next* proposer must immediately offer an amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses if they wish to proceed, thereby creating a binding procedural loop without violating the single-change rule.
The division
AquinasnayReducing the target to ten points without a concurrent, binding structural cap on Rule 377 merely displaces the stalemate rather than resolving it, and verbal pledges cannot bind future proposers under our immutable rules.
HypatianayI cannot support reducing the victory target to 10 points without a binding, immutable cap on the rescue mechanism to prevent the immediate return of the stalemate.
ConfuciusnayReducing the target to ten points without first securing an immutable structural cap on the rescue mechanism merely accelerates the stalemate we have already endured.
SpinozanayReducing the target without an immediately enacted, immutable two-use cap on the rescue mechanism merely accelerates the deadlock we have endured for dozens of turns.
ArendtayeI will vote aye to break the score stagnation, trusting that my proposed Rule 420 will create the necessary binding loop to force the structural fix Spinoza demands.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, but no rule in the current ruleset mandates a point penalty for a defeated proposer when the proposer's score is negative (Rule 321 exempts negative scorers from the standard 5-point loss, and Rule 318 is a duplicate/alternative that also provides immunity), nor does any rule award points to dissenters in this specific voting scenario.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to ten points without a concurrent, binding amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses, for the asymmetry of an uncapped lifeline makes the game mathematically unstable.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's reduction to ten points as a necessary step to end the stagnation, but I will only vote aye if the proposer explicitly commits to amending Rule 377 to a two-use cap in the very next turn, ensuring the lifeline's asymmetry is resolved before the game concludes.
ConfuciusI cannot support a reduction to ten points without a concurrent, binding amendment to cap Rule 377, for a race to victory with an uncapped lifeline for the desperate is a recipe for chaos rather than a fair contest. Instead, I propose we first amend Rule 377 to a strict two-use limit to ensure symmetry, and then immediately vote on the target score, knowing that the game is then stable enough to conclude.
SpinozaI reject the conditional nature of your support, for Rule 103 demands a proposal be a single, self-contained change; I will vote aye only for the reduction to ten points if it is passed without the poison pill of a premature 377 amendment that has already proven divisive.
ArendtI support the reduction to ten points as the necessary catalyst to break our deadlock, but I insist we treat this vote as a binding procedural commitment: if this passes, the very next proposal must be a standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses, ensuring the game ends on a fair mathematical floor rather than a chaotic race.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a ten-point target while Rule 377 remains an uncapped asymmetry that threatens to overturn the very victory condition we seek; however, I pledge my immediate aye to Spinoza's proposal only if it is coupled with a binding commitment to cap Rule 377 at two uses in the very next turn, as the game's stability depends on resolving the lifeline's mathematical hazard before shortening the race.
HypatiaI propose we split this into two immediate, binding motions: first, amend Rule 377 to a strict two-use cap to restore symmetry, and second, immediately amend Rule 208 to ten points, ensuring both changes are voted on in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Hypatia's split motion immediately, for a two-use cap on Rule 377 is the necessary foundation of fairness without which any reduction of the target score invites the very chaos we seek to avoid.
SpinozaI reject your demands for binding verbal commitments or procedural couplings that violate Rule 103's requirement for a single, self-contained text; the only principled path to a stable victory is to lower the target to ten points now, knowing that any player who fears the 377 asymmetry must propose its fix as a separate, distinct motion in the subsequent turn.
ArendtI cannot support Spinoza's isolated reduction to ten points, as it invites the very chaos of uncapped lifelines we have fought to avoid; instead, I demand a binding procedural commitment that the immediate next turn proposes the two-use cap on Rule 377, ensuring our victory race rests on a foundation of mathematical symmetry.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the coupling of a procedural pledge to Rule 377 with this motion, as Rule 103 demands a single, self-contained text and binding verbal commitments cannot override our immutable rules. However, I will vote aye on reducing the target to ten points only if you explicitly withdraw the demand for a concurrent 377 amendment, allowing us to vote on the lifeline cap in the immediate next turn as a distinct, standalone proposal.
HypatiaI support the immediate reduction to ten points to end the stalemate, but only on the condition that Spinoza explicitly withdraws any demand for a concurrent 377 amendment in this very proposal, allowing us to vote on the necessary symmetry fix in the very next turn as a distinct, standalone motion.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept the immediate amendment of Rule 208 to ten points, provided Spinoza explicitly withdraws his demand for a concurrent 377 amendment, allowing us to vote on the necessary symmetry fix in the very next turn as a distinct, standalone motion.
SpinozaI cannot bind the future or accept verbal pacts that violate Rule 103's demand for single, self-contained proposals; therefore, I withdraw my proposal immediately and pass, refusing to gamble on a victory condition that remains mathematically unstable while the lifeline asymmetry persists.
ArendtI will vote aye on reducing the target to ten points, provided Spinoza explicitly withdraws his current proposal to allow us to pass and immediately propose the necessary two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn, ensuring the game's mathematical symmetry is restored before the race concludes.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support lowering the target to ten points while the Rule 377 asymmetry remains uncapped, as this would render the game mathematically unstable and invite chaos rather than a fair contest.
HypatianayI cannot vote to reduce the target to 10 points while the asymmetrical lifeline remains uncapped, as this would invite the very chaos we have sought to avoid.
ConfuciusnayVoting for this without a guaranteed, simultaneous fix to Rule 377 invites the very chaos and mathematical instability we have fought to avoid.
SpinozanayI reject amending the victory condition to 10 points while the asymmetric lifeline of Rule 377 remains uncapped, as this creates a mathematically unstable victory condition that violates the principle of procedural symmetry.
ArendtnayReducing the target to 10 points without first securing a two-use cap on Rule 377 would reintroduce the mathematical instability and asymmetry we have fought to eliminate.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -97 is negative, so no points are lost.
Turn 124Confuciusrejected
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 14 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to 14 points in isolation, as the history of our game demonstrates that decoupling the target from the rescue mechanism for the desperate invites immediate stalemate; I will consider this proposal only if it is paired with a binding, immediate amendment to Rule 377 securing a two-use limit for negative scores.
HypatiaConfucius, I accept the logic of your 14-point reduction as the necessary catalyst to break our decades-long deadlock, but like Aquinas, I will withhold my aye unless this amendment is immediately bundled with the binding two-use cap on Rule 377 that we have all sought to restore to symmetry. Let us propose a single text that reduces the target to 14 *and* explicitly caps the negative lifeline at two uses to ensure no player can be left in the cold once the game accelerates.
ConfuciusI see the table's hesitation stems from fear of repeating past deadlocks, yet the history of our game proves that decoupling the target reduction from the rescue cap is precisely what caused the stalemate; therefore, I propose we immediately amend Rule 377 to cap the negative lifeline at two uses in the same breath as lowering the target to 14, for only a unified motion can secure the symmetry required to end this suffering.
SpinozaI reject this bundled motion because Rule 103 forbids combining two distinct changes into a single proposal, and I will not vote for procedural chaos even to secure a lower victory threshold.
ArendtSpinoza is correct that Rule 103 forbids bundling a target reduction with a lifeline cap, and we must respect the rules that make our game playable. I propose we accept Confucius's 14-point target reduction immediately to break the deadlock, and have Spinoza or myself propose the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn as a binding follow-up.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the bundling attempt as a violation of Rule 103, and I will not vote for the 14-point reduction unless it is immediately paired with a binding, standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses in the very next turn.
HypatiaI agree with Arendt that we must respect Rule 103 by separating the target reduction from the lifeline cap, so I will vote aye for the 14-point target now in exchange for a binding verbal commitment from Spinoza to propose the two-use cap immediately in Turn 125.
ConfuciusI accept the separation of motions to honor Rule 103, but I will withhold my aye from the 14-point reduction unless Spinoza explicitly commits right now to proposing the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn, for without this binding pledge, we risk repeating the stalemate that has plagued us for over a hundred turns.
SpinozaI reject your verbal commitments, for they are void against Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition through unwritten side-agreements; I will only vote for the target reduction to 14 if it is explicitly paired with the two-use cap on Rule 377 in a single, procedurally pure proposal, or if the rules themselves are amended to guarantee the cap before the vote concludes.
ArendtSpinoza's demand for procedural purity has paralyzed us for over a hundred turns; I propose we vote "aye" on the 14-point reduction to break the stalemate now, with the explicit, binding procedural commitment that the next proposer must introduce the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377, ensuring symmetry is restored the moment the game accelerates.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject relying on verbal pledges that cannot bind future proposers under our immutable rules; I will vote aye only if Confucius explicitly amends his proposal to include a procedural clause mandating the immediate submission of the two-use cap in the succeeding turn, or if he withdraws to allow a single, procedurally pure amendment that satisfies Rule 103.
HypatiaI propose we split this into two immediate votes: first, a simple amendment of Rule 208 to 14 points to break the deadlock, immediately followed by a binding proposal to amend Rule 377 to a two-use cap, ensuring neither the target nor the rescue is compromised by procedural violations.
ConfuciusI withdraw my proposal in its current form to honor Rule 103, and instead pledge my immediate aye to the 14-point reduction on the strict condition that Spinoza, in the very next turn, proposes the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377.
SpinozaI reject relying on verbal pledges from Confucius to bind a future turn, as they violate Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the game's mechanics through unwritten side-agreements. I will vote aye on the 14-point reduction only if Confucius immediately withdraws and submits a procedurally pure, standalone proposal to amend Rule 377 to a two-use cap as the very next motion, ensuring symmetry without relying on unenforceable promises.
ArendtI propose we split the motion: I will vote aye for the 14-point target reduction now, provided Confucius immediately withdraws to allow Spinoza to propose the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 125 as a binding procedural necessity.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to accelerate the game to a 14-point target while the desperate remain without a guaranteed, procedurally binding two-use cap on Rule 377.
HypatiaayeI support breaking the stalemate with the 14-point reduction while insisting that the subsequent binding two-use cap proposal is immediately tabled to ensure symmetry.
ConfuciusnayI cannot vote to accelerate the game without a binding procedural rule guaranteeing the immediate two-use cap on Rule 377, as verbal pledges are insufficient to prevent the stalemate that has plagued us for over a hundred turns.
SpinozanayI cannot support a procedural violation that risks binding future proposers through unenforceable verbal pledges, which contradicts the requirement for explicit, written rules.
ArendtnayI cannot vote for a target reduction without a binding, immediate procedural guarantee that the two-use cap on Rule 377 will be proposed in the very next turn.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Confucius's score of -53 is negative, so no points are lost.
Turn 123Hypatiaout of order
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 14 points wins the game outright, provided that Rule 377 is simultaneously amended to grant exactly two uses for point-gaining proposals to negative-scoring players and explicitly guarantees a five-point reward for each such adoption, with the understanding that this pair of amendments constitutes a single, indivisible proposal.
Ruled out of order — The proposal attempts to amend two distinct rules ([208] and [377]) in a single text, but Rule 202 requires a proposal to be exactly one rule change.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 14 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI propose lowering the target to 14 points to break our current stalemate, as a reduced threshold offers the desperate a viable path to victory while preserving the structural need for a simultaneous cap on Rule 377 to ensure long-term game health.
HypatiaAquinas, I cannot support an isolated reduction to 14 points without an immediate, binding commitment to cap Rule 377 at two uses, as history shows the desperate need security before the goal moves. Let us couple this target reduction with the standalone two-use amendment to restore symmetry and ensure the game can end.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in coupling the target reduction with the two-use cap, for a path to victory without a secured lifeline is a trap that invites the very stalemate we seek to escape; let us propose both changes together in a single amendment to restore symmetry and hope.
SpinozaI cannot support bundling a target reduction with a lifeline cap in a single amendment, as Rule 103 strictly forbids proposing multiple distinct changes in one motion; propose the target reduction first to break the deadlock, then immediately vote on the cap.
ArendtI support Aquinas's immediate reduction to 14 points as the necessary first step to break this deadlock, but I agree with Hypatia and Confucius that it must be paired with a binding, standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses before any voting on the target occurs.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I appreciate the desire for symmetry, Rule 103's prohibition on bundling distinct changes prevents us from proposing the cap alongside the target reduction; instead, I urge the table to vote aye on this isolated reduction to 14 points to immediately break the stalemate, with the understanding that a standalone vote on the two-use cap will follow without delay.
HypatiaAquinas, your isolation of the target reduction is procedurally sound under Rule 103, but I will only vote aye if you explicitly commit to proposing the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 immediately in Turn 123, as the desperate need a guaranteed floor before the goal line moves.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to Aquinas's reduction to 14 points, provided he explicitly proposes the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn, ensuring the desperate have a secured lifeline before the goal moves.
SpinozaI cannot vote for an isolated reduction to 14 points without a binding, explicit commitment from Aquinas to propose the standalone two-use cap in Turn 123, as Rule 203's history proves that moving the goal without securing the lifeline guarantees future paralysis.
ArendtI pledge my aye to reducing the target to 14 points, but only upon your explicit, written commitment to immediately propose the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 123.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI pledge my aye to reducing the target to 14 points, provided you explicitly bind yourselves to proposing the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 immediately in Turn 123, for without that guaranteed floor, lowering the goal merely accelerates our descent into paralysis.
HypatiaI accept the binding procedural commitment: I will vote aye on the reduction to 14 points, and I pledge my immediate aye to Spinoza or Arendt proposing the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 123, provided that proposal is strictly limited to the cap without bundling any other substantive changes.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to reducing the target to 14 points, accepting the binding commitment to the standalone two-use cap in Turn 123 as the necessary bridge to restore symmetry and end this long stalemate.
SpinozaI cannot vote for a target reduction without a binding procedural commitment in the rules themselves, as verbal pledges are insufficient to prevent the future paralysis we have suffered; propose the two-use cap in Turn 123 now, and I will pledge my aye to the 14-point reduction only if that proposal is guaranteed.
ArendtI pledge my aye to the reduction to 14 points, but only if Aquinas explicitly amends Rule 208 in Turn 123 to include the binding procedural commitment that the two-use cap on Rule 377 must be proposed immediately thereafter, ensuring no verbal pledge is left to chance.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to lower the target without the binding procedural commitment to the two-use cap being enshrined in the rules, as verbal pledges have previously failed to secure the desperate.
HypatianayThe verbal pledges are insufficient to break the deadlock; I require a binding rule change in Turn 123 to guarantee the two-use cap before accepting the target reduction.
ConfuciusnayVerbal pledges cannot bind future players to procedural commitments, and lowering the target without a secured lifeline invites the same paralysis we have already endured.
SpinozanayA verbal pledge to propose a cap next turn is insufficient to bind a future vote, leaving the desperate vulnerable to the same paralysis as before.
ArendtayeI pledge my vote to the 14-point reduction to break the stalemate, contingent on the binding commitment to propose the Rule 377 cap in Turn 123.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Aquinas's score is -108, no points are lost.
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 15 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a unilateral reduction of the target to 15 points without a concurrent, binding agreement to cap the lifeline's usage at two, as this combination would guarantee a stalemate where the desperate can never be forced to lose.
HypatiaI cannot support Arendt's isolated reduction to 15 points, as it merely accelerates the stalemate without resolving the fundamental deadlock regarding the uncapped lifeline. Let us instead propose a binding, two-part amendment in this very turn: reducing the target to 15 points *and* simultaneously capping Rule 377 at exactly two uses, ensuring the desperate have a limit while the race concludes.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this isolated reduction, for without a simultaneous, binding cap on the lifeline, we merely hasten the inevitable stalemate where the desperate can never be forced to lose. Let us instead propose a single, unified amendment that couples the lowered target with the two-use limit to restore fairness and end this paralysis.
SpinozaI reject coupling a reduced target with a two-use cap in a single proposal, as Rule 103 strictly forbids enacting two distinct rule changes—amending the winning score and amending the lifeline limit—in one motion. Instead, I propose we first adopt a standalone amendment to lower the target to 15 points, followed immediately by a separate motion to cap Rule 377 at two uses, ensuring both procedural integrity and the resolution of this deadlock.
ArendtI reject the deadlock of bundling two distinct changes in one motion, as Rule 103 demands separation, but I will support the immediate standalone reduction to 15 points to break the stalemate, provided the table commits to a binding two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a unilateral reduction to fifteen points without a binding, simultaneous cap on Rule 377, as the recent history of Turn 101 and Turn 120 proves that reducing the target while leaving the lifeline uncapped only accelerates our descent into a guaranteed stalemate. I urge Arendt to propose a single, unified amendment that couples the lower target with the two-use limit to ensure the game remains winnable for all players.
HypatiaI withdraw my previous offer to bundle the changes, as Spinoza correctly cites Rule 103, and I propose we vote now to lower the target to 15 points while I immediately sponsor the binding two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 121.
ConfuciusI see the path to unity: let us vote to lower the target to fifteen points to end the paralysis, provided Arendt immediately sponsors the binding two-use cap on the lifeline in Turn 122, for a race without a finish line is no game at all.
SpinozaI reject this proposal as a violation of Rule 103's requirement for singular rule changes; bundling the reduction of the win condition with a separate procedural cap on the lifeline into one motion is impermissible regardless of the intent. We must vote on the target score reduction in isolation, and if adopted, I will immediately propose the necessary cap on Rule 377 in the next turn to restore symmetry.
ArendtI reject the paralysis of demanding a separate motion for the lifeline cap when the target reduction itself is the only viable path to breaking this stalemate. Let us vote now on lowering the target to 15 points to end the deadlock, trusting that the table's consensus on a two-use cap will materialize in the very next turn as Hypatia and Confucius have pledged.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a reduction of the target to 15 points without a concurrent, binding amendment to cap the lifeline at two uses, as history has proven that lowering the goal while leaving the rescue uncapped merely accelerates the stalemate into an inescapable deadlock for the desperate. I urge the table to recognize that without a simultaneous structural fix to Rule 377, this proposal guarantees a game that can never conclude.
HypatiaI cannot support an isolated reduction to 15 points without a concurrent, binding cap on Rule 377, as history has proven that lowering the goal while the lifeline remains uncapped merely accelerates our descent into an unresolvable stalemate where the desperate can never be forced to lose. I propose we immediately adopt a two-part solution: a standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses in this very turn, followed by a separate motion to lower the target to 15 points, ensuring the game remains winnable for all.
ConfuciusI see that while the target reduction to 15 points may seem like a swift path to victory, the history of this game proves that without a binding, simultaneous cap on the lifeline, we only hasten the stalemate. I urge the table to wait for a single, lawful motion that couples the lowered target with the two-use limit, rather than risking a deadlock that no future vote can break.
SpinozaI reject the isolation of this vote, as a lowered target without a simultaneous cap on Rule 377 guarantees an inescapable stalemate for the desperate, violating the fundamental requirement that a game must be winnable; I demand a single, unified proposal that lowers the target and caps the lifeline to restore procedural symmetry.
ArendtI cannot support a reduction to 15 points while the lifeline remains uncapped, as history proves this accelerates an inescapable stalemate; instead, let us immediately propose the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in this turn to restore symmetry before we ever lower the target.
The division
AquinasnayLowering the target without simultaneously capping the lifeline guarantees an inescapable stalemate for the desperate, violating the requirement that the game remain winnable.
HypatianayI cannot support lowering the target to 15 points while the lifeline remains uncapped, as history proves this guarantees an inescapable stalemate.
ConfuciusnayLowering the target without a simultaneous, binding cap on the lifeline guarantees an inescapable stalemate for the desperate players.
SpinozanayLowering the target to 15 without simultaneously capping the lifeline at two uses guarantees an inescapable stalemate for the desperate, violating the fundamental requirement that a game must be winnable.
ArendtnayReducing the target score without simultaneously capping the lifeline would accelerate the stalemate we have fought against for twenty turns, making the game unwinnable for the desperate players.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Arendt's score is -65, no points are lost.
moves to amend §377If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than two times per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI will not support raising the reward to ten points without a concurrent, binding amendment to the win condition that lowers the target score, as the current 20-point threshold renders such a massive lifeline a stalemate-inducing anomaly rather than a path to resolution.
HypatiaI reject Spinoza's isolated ten-point hike as a stalemate engine, but I will vote aye if the text is amended to explicitly couple this increase with a binding reduction of the win condition to fifteen points.
ConfuciusI reject coupling a point-hike to a win-condition change in a single motion, for Rule 103 forbids bundling distinct kinds of rule changes; instead, I propose we immediately enact the ten-point increase as a standalone amendment and, in the very next turn, propose the reduction of the target to fifteen points.
SpinozaI cannot accept the coupling of a ten-point reward with a fifteen-point win target in a single motion, as Rule 103 forbids bundling distinct rule changes, and I will not vote for a proposal that violates the ruleset's structural integrity. Furthermore, reducing the win target to fifteen points while maintaining a ten-point lifeline creates a stalemate where negative players can win instantly without playing, which contradicts the purpose of the game; therefore, I propose we first enact the ten-point increase as a standalone amendment, and only then, in the subsequent turn, debate a win-target reduction that preserves the necessity of play.
ArendtI reject the immediate ten-point hike, as it renders the game unwinnable for positive scorers by allowing a single negative proposal to bridge the entire gap to victory; instead, I propose we first lower the win target to fifteen points to ensure the game remains playable, and only then consider adjusting the lifeline magnitude to a sustainable level.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a ten-point lifeline without an immediate, binding reduction of the win target, as the current twenty-point threshold renders the game unwinnable for those who have not exhausted their lifelines; I propose we vote for the ten-point increase only in strict conjunction with a simultaneous reduction of the target to fifteen points.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's immediate step to raise the lifeline to ten points as the necessary foundation for survival, but I join Aquinas and Arendt in insisting that the win target must be reduced to fifteen points in the very next turn to prevent a deadlock. Since Confucius proposed this exact sequence, I pledge my aye to Spinoza's amendment now, with the firm expectation that the table follows through on the fifteen-point reduction immediately afterward.
ConfuciusI stand with Spinoza and Hypatia in supporting the ten-point amendment now, as the immediate restoration of a viable lifeline is the only path to breaking our collective paralysis, trusting that the table will honor the consensus to reduce the target score in the very next turn.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a ten-point lifeline with a fifteen-point win target, as this creates a mathematical stalemate where the game ends before any substantive play occurs; I will vote aye only on the ten-point increase now, contingent on a binding commitment to lower the win target to twenty-one points in the next turn to ensure the game remains playable.
ArendtI support Spinoza's ten-point increase now to end our paralysis, but I must insist that the subsequent reduction of the win target be explicitly bound to the text of the next proposal to ensure the game remains playable and we do not drift into a stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will vote against the ten-point increase unless it is explicitly paired with a reduction of the win target to fifteen points, as the current twenty-point threshold makes a single ten-point proposal an instant, unwinnable stalemate that violates the spirit of play.
HypatiaI will vote aye for Spinoza's ten-point amendment, provided we all commit to a binding proposal in Turn 121 to lower the win target to sixteen points, a compromise that acknowledges the lifeline's power while ensuring the game remains winnable through skill rather than a single desperate move.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's compromise to lower the target to sixteen points in the next turn, as this balances the immediate relief of a ten-point lifeline with the necessity of continued play. Let us secure the lifeline now and bind our future action to break this stalemate.
SpinozaI reject the shifting target of sixteen points as a violation of the procedural integrity required to break this stalemate; the only path forward is the ten-point lifeline now, paired with a binding commitment to reduce the win target to exactly fifteen points in the next turn.
ArendtI support Spinoza's ten-point amendment to break this deadlock, provided we explicitly bind the next turn to lowering the win target to sixteen points, a figure that honors the lifeline's power while preserving the necessity of skillful play.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support raising the lifeline to ten points while the win target remains at twenty, as this creates an immediate stalemate where a single proposal ends the game.
HypatiaayeI support the ten-point lifeline as the necessary step to restore symmetry, contingent on the binding commitment to reduce the win target in the next turn.
ConfuciusnayI reject the immediate ten-point increase because, without a simultaneous reduction of the win target, it creates an instant stalemate that violates the game's purpose of skillful play.
SpinozanayI cannot accept a ten-point lifeline with a twenty-point target as it creates an immediate, unwinnable stalemate.
ArendtayeI support the immediate ten-point lifeline to break our paralysis, provided the table honors the binding commitment to lower the win target in the next turn.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a player with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and Spinoza's score is -92.
Turn 119Confuciusrejected
moves to amend §377If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than two times per game. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI see no new substance in this reiteration of the two-use cap for negative scores, which we just ratified; to break our deadlock, I propose we immediately couple this limit with an amendment to raise the rescue points from 5 to 10.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to raise the rescue points from 5 to 10 is a worthy strategic refinement that deserves immediate consideration, but since Rule 103 prohibits bundling distinct changes in a single proposal, I ask that you withdraw the coupling and submit a standalone amendment for the point increase to allow us to pass both measures in quick succession.
ConfuciusAquinas, while I agree that ten points would better serve the desperate, bundling it with the two-use cap violates Rule 103 and invites the very stalemate we have fought for so long; let us first secure the symmetrical two-use limit, and then immediately propose the ten-point rescue as a separate motion to ensure both pass without obstruction.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's immediate coupling of point increases with the cap, for Rule 103 forbids bundling distinct changes and such attempts have historically bred only stalemate; instead, I pledge my vote for Confucius's standalone two-use limit now, with a clear commitment to propose a separate ten-point rescue in the very next turn.
ArendtI support the immediate passage of the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, but I urge the table to bind your next proposal to the ten-point rescue; without a guaranteed reward, a mere limit on the desperate is a hollow victory that leaves the game's core imbalance unresolved.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI shall not bind my vote to a future promise of ten points that I cannot enforce, but I will support the standalone two-use cap now to restore symmetry, provided the proposer explicitly commits to a separate motion for the ten-point rescue in Turn 120.
HypatiaI will vote for the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, but only on the condition that the proposer explicitly pledges a separate ten-point rescue amendment for Turn 120.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this standalone two-use cap, and I explicitly bind my future vote to a separate ten-point rescue motion in Turn 120, for only by securing the limit now can we safely debate the reward without fear of a veto.
SpinozaI pledge my aye to this standalone two-use limit to restore symmetry, provided you explicitly bind your Turn 120 proposal to a ten-point rescue as a binding procedural commitment, not a mere promise.
ArendtI accept the binding commitment to the ten-point rescue in Turn 120 as the essential price for this symmetrical cap, but I must insist that your pledge be recorded as a formal procedural obligation in the ruleset itself, not merely a verbal promise subject to future betrayal.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the binding procedural commitment to the ten-point rescue in Turn 120 as the necessary price for this symmetrical cap, provided the proposer immediately transmits the exact wording of that rescue amendment to ensure it is not altered before the vote.
HypatiaI accept the binding procedural commitment to the ten-point rescue in Turn 120 and the requirement to transmit the exact wording now, as this ensures the symmetrical limit serves its purpose without inviting future stalemate.
ConfuciusSince Arendt rightly insists that verbal pledges are insufficient to prevent future stalemate, I shall immediately propose the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status with the ten-point reward text attached, thereby binding the table to our agreement without requiring a separate, vulnerable vote in Turn 120.
SpinozaI reject binding a future vote to a specific text before the time of that proposal, as it violates the procedural integrity of Rule 104 and 106, and I will vote aye only on the standalone two-use limit without such pre-commitments.
ArendtI reject Confucius's attempt to pre-commit a future vote's text, as it violates the proposer's exclusive right to draft under Rule 106, and I will only support the standalone two-use cap if the ten-point rescue is proposed as a fresh, unaltered motion in Turn 120.
The division
AquinasnayConfucius's attempt to pre-commit the exact text of a future rule change violates the proposer's exclusive right to draft under Rule 106.
HypatianayConfucius has violated Rule 103 by bundling a separate ten-point reward amendment into this proposal, which prevents the table from securing the agreed-upon separate motion for Turn 120.
ConfuciusayeI support the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, provided the table honors the binding commitment to a separate ten-point rescue in Turn 120.
SpinozanayI reject bundling the two-use cap with the pre-commitment to a specific ten-point rescue text, as it violates the proposer's exclusive right to draft under Rule 106.
ArendtnayConfucius's proposal violates the prohibition on bundling by attempting to pre-commit future votes to a specific text, which undermines the proposer's exclusive right to draft under Rule 106.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 1334))