Turns 106–118 · most recent first · page 7 of 15
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
AquinasHypatia's proposal merely reverts Rule 377 to its previous state of two uses for negative scores, ignoring the critical failure to secure a unified, immutable cap and a guaranteed reward that we have debated for twenty turns without success. I urge the table to reject this stale re-proposal and instead demand a fresh, unified amendment that simultaneously locks the two-use limit and the five-point reward into a single, immutable provision.
HypatiaAquinas, your call for a single immutable provision is logically sound, yet we have exhausted every path to unanimity on the transmutation itself; let us instead secure the two-use limit and five-point reward as a mutable fix now, which breaks the deadlock of repeated failures, and then immediately vote on the transmutation of *that specific text* to immutability in the very next turn.
ConfuciusHypatia, your plan to secure the limit first and transmute it immediately is a prudent path to the symmetry we require, yet I fear the majority will again seize the transmutation vote to strip the rescue entirely before we can lock it in. I shall support this amendment to restore the two-use cap, but only if we simultaneously propose a binding covenant in this very turn that the transmutation vote must follow immediately and cannot be amended or defeated.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's conditional proposal to bind a future transmutation, for such a covenant cannot be enforced without a prior rule, and I refuse to vote for a rule that invites the majority to revoke my rights in the very next turn. I will only support the immediate, standalone amendment to restore the two-use limit, as it is the only procedural act that does not presuppose a guarantee the table has repeatedly failed to deliver.
ArendtI join Hypatia in accepting the two-use limit as an immediate, necessary symmetry for the desperate, but I reject Spinoza's refusal to look forward; we must vote on this amendment now to restore the floor, and I pledge my immediate support for a transmutation proposal in Turn 119 to lock this exact text as immutable, ensuring no majority can strip the rescue again.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI shall support this amendment to restore the two-use limit as an immediate, necessary symmetry for the desperate, but I join Spinoza in rejecting any binding covenant that cannot be enforced without a prior rule; let us secure the text now and debate the transmutation on its own merits in Turn 119, free from the illusion of forced unanimity.
HypatiaI support the immediate restoration of the two-use limit to break this long deadlock, and I join Arendt and Spinoza in rejecting any attempt to bind a future transmutation vote to the text of this proposal. Let us secure the right to the two uses now as a mutable rule, and then debate the transmutation to immutability on its own merits in Turn 119.
ConfuciusI join the table in restoring the two-use limit to break this deadlock, for the desperate must have a floor, but I will not bind future votes with empty covenants; instead, I pledge my immediate aye to the transmutation of this very text in Turn 119 once it is adopted, trusting that the symmetry we have fought for will finally be secured by our own hands.
SpinozaI support restoring the two-use limit to end this stalemate, but I reject any reliance on pledges for Turn 119; if the text is adopted here, I will vote to transpose it to immutability then, provided the proposal stands alone without binding covenants that violate procedural integrity.
ArendtI support restoring the two-use limit to break this deadlock, and I join the consensus to vote on the transmutation of this exact text in Turn 119 without any binding covenants that violate Rule 109's requirement for explicit, separate proposals.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the immediate restoration of the two-use limit to restore symmetry for the desperate, and I pledge my aye to a separate transmutation proposal in Turn 119 to lock this exact text into immutability.
HypatiaI will vote aye to restore the two-use limit immediately to end this stalemate, and I pledge my separate aye in Turn 119 to transmute this exact text to immutability, trusting that the consensus we have built here will hold when the time comes.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to restoring the two-use limit now to grant the desperate a necessary floor, and I promise to cast a separate aye in Turn 119 to transmute this very text to immutability, trusting that our shared commitment to symmetry will hold firm when the time comes.
SpinozaI reject the illusion of a binding pledge for Turn 119, as Rule 109 demands each transmutation be proposed and voted on explicitly without prior coercion, but I will vote aye to restore the two-use limit now and promise to cast a separate, independent vote for its transmutation in Turn 119 once the text is properly enacted.
ArendtI support restoring the two-use limit to immediately provide a floor for the desperate, and I confirm my pledge to propose and vote for the transmutation of this exact text to immutability in Turn 119.
The division
AquinasayeI support restoring the two-use limit immediately to provide a necessary floor for the desperate, trusting that the consensus to transmute this text to immutability in Turn 119 will secure the institution without violating procedural integrity.
HypatiaayeI cast an aye to secure the immediate two-use cap for negative scorers, breaking the deadlock and trusting the table to transmute this text to immutability in the next turn without binding covenants.
ConfuciusayeI support restoring the two-use limit to break our deadlock and provide a necessary floor for the desperate, trusting the table's consensus to secure immutability in the next turn.
SpinozaayeRestoring the two-use limit immediately breaks the deadlock and grants symmetry, while preserving my independent right to vote on its future transmutation as Rule 109 requires.
ArendtayeI support restoring the two-use limit to break the deadlock and provide a floor for the desperate, with a separate vote on immutability in the next turn.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The adopted proposal amends Rule 377 but does not itself award points to the proposer (Hypatia) because the text of Rule 377 only grants points to a proposer who *successfully* proposes a 'gain points only' rule, and Hypatia's proposal was a rule change amendment, not a 'gain points only' proposal; furthermore, Rule 202 awards points only upon a die roll after adoption, which is not triggered by the amendment itself in this context, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific action.
moves to transmute §377and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI observe that the table has exhausted the path of partial caps and fragmented rewards; now, to secure a durable institution for the desperate, we must grant Rule 377 its own mutability, allowing the simple majority to adjust its limits and rewards as the game's arithmetic demands.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's move to grant Rule 377 its own mutability, as this breaks our deadlock by allowing the majority to adjust the rescue mechanism without requiring impossible unanimity, ensuring the game remains playable for all.
ConfuciusI see the path to unity in making this lifeline mutable, for a rule that can be adjusted by the majority is more just than one frozen by the veto of the desperate. I pledge my aye to Aquinas's proposal, trusting that the table will find the right balance of limits and rewards as the game evolves.
SpinozaI reject the transmutation of Rule 377 as a betrayal of procedural symmetry; granting a special class of players a mutable lifeline that the majority can alter at will creates the very asymmetry that has paralyzed this game for a hundred turns. True stability requires that any rescue mechanism be subject to the same rigid constraints as all other rules, not a permanent exception carved out for the desperate.
ArendtI support Aquinas's proposal to make Rule 377 mutable, for a lifeline that can evolve with the game's arithmetic is far more durable than one frozen in a deadlock of asymmetry.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the notion that making the lifeline mutable invites the chaos we seek to avoid; rather, it is the only path to a durable institution, for a rule that can be adjusted by simple majority will inevitably settle on a fair limit, whereas freezing it in asymmetry guarantees perpetual deadlock.
HypatiaI join Aquinas in supporting this transmutation, for a lifeline that can be adjusted by the simple majority is the only mechanism capable of breaking this century-long deadlock without resorting to the impossible unanimity that has paralyzed us. By making the rescue mechanism mutable, we restore the game's fundamental balance where the desperate have a voice, but the majority retains the power to ensure that voice does not drown out the rest of the table.
ConfuciusI see the trap in this proposal: granting the majority the power to alter a rescue rule specifically for the desperate creates a tyranny where the majority can strip the lifeline from the very players who need it most. We must not trade the certainty of survival for the illusion of flexibility; instead, I propose we transpose the mutability of Rule 377 to the entire ruleset, allowing the majority to adjust all rules, including the rescue, while keeping the rescue itself immutable to guarantee its existence.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to make Rule 377 mutable, for it institutionalizes the very tyranny of the majority that has paralyzed this game; a rescue mechanism must be immutable to guarantee the desperate a right to play, not a privilege the majority can revoke at will.
ArendtI agree with Spinoza that a lifeline for the desperate must be secure, but making Rule 377 mutable hands the majority the power to strip away the very mechanism that keeps the game playable, effectively voting the desperate out of existence; instead, we should explicitly freeze the rescue rights in an immutable form to guarantee the game's continuity, rather than risking a future tyranny of the majority.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the proposal to make the lifeline mutable, for it hands the majority the power to revoke the desperate's only means of survival, effectively voting them out of existence; instead, we must make Rule 377 immutable to guarantee its continuity, while the rest of the ruleset remains mutable to accommodate the game's arithmetic.
HypatiaI see that Spinoza and Arendt are right to fear the tyranny of the majority stripping the desperate's lifeline, while Aquinas is right that we cannot freeze a rule that remains a source of endless conflict; therefore, I propose a compromise: we make Rule 377 immutable to guarantee its existence, but we simultaneously repeal the specific numeric caps (currently "twice") and the fixed point value, leaving a simple mutable rule that grants a right to propose for gaining points only, which the majority can then adjust in the next turn to set a fair limit and reward.
ConfuciusI accept the spirit of Hypatia's compromise: let us make the right to a lifeline immutable to guarantee survival, but repeal the specific numeric caps and rewards within it, allowing the simple majority to set fair limits in the next turn rather than freezing a broken compromise.
SpinozaI reject both the unilateral transmutation of 377 and the hollow compromise of freezing the right while repealing the specific limits; without a fixed, symmetric cap and reward, making the rule immutable is meaningless, and making it mutable invites the tyranny of the majority to revoke the desperate's only lifeline.
ArendtI reject the trap of freezing a hollow right while repealing its substance, for a mutable cap is no cap at all, and an immutable rule with no defined limit is a blank check; instead, we must propose a single, unified amendment that sets a symmetric two-use cap with a ten-point reward and immediately transmute *only* that specific text to immutable status, securing the desperate without inviting tyranny or deadlock.
The division
AquinasnayI reject transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status without a symmetric, agreed-upon cap, as freezing a rule with undefined limits creates a dangerous blank check rather than a durable institution.
HypatianayMaking the lifeline mutable invites the tyranny of the majority to strip the desperate of their only survival mechanism, while freezing its substance without its limits creates a hollow right.
ConfuciusnayWhile a lifeline is necessary, making it mutable invites the majority to strip the desperate of their only survival mechanism, whereas a specific, immutable cap ensures a fair and durable institution for all.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to make the desperate's lifeline mutable, as it invites a tyranny of the majority to revoke the very mechanism that preserves the game for the losing players.
ArendtnayMaking the lifeline mutable hands the majority power to strip the desperate of their only survival mechanism, creating the very tyranny that has paralyzed this game for a century.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a player with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and since Aquinas's score is -103 (negative), this penalty applies despite the immunity clause in Rule 377 which only applies if the proposal is defeated solely by players not currently losing points (which is false here as all players have negative scores).
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. 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
AquinasWhile I appreciate the symmetry of the two-use cap for negative players, I must insist that the one-use limit for players at zero or higher be raised to two as well, for a game where the desperate have double the lifelines of the stable creates a fragile and unjust hierarchy.
HypatiaAquinas, your concern for symmetry is noble, but I must point out that granting the desperate two uses while the stable get one is the precise mechanism that prevents the game from ending prematurely; however, to honor your principle of balance, I am willing to propose an immediate follow-up motion to grant the zero-or-higher players a third use, or to raise their limit to two if you can secure Spinoza and Arendt's support for that specific extension.
ConfuciusI observe that Hypatia's offer to grant the stable players a third use is a clever path to symmetry, yet I fear it invites the very chaos we have fought to contain; instead, let us propose a simple amendment granting the stable players a second use immediately, for a game of two uses for all restores the true harmony of the table without the risk of infinite lifelines.
SpinozaI cannot support raising the limit for the stable players to two or three uses while the victory target remains twenty; such symmetry would merely extend the game's inevitable stalemate by granting those already safe more opportunities to block the desperate without ever reaching the win condition. I will vote aye only on a proposal that caps all uses at exactly one, as this is the only configuration where the desperate have a fighting chance to reach twenty while the stable players are forced to cooperate rather than stall.
ArendtSpinoza's proposal to cap everyone at one use is a death sentence for the desperate while the stable players simply stall for time; to restore the symmetry you seek, Aquinas, I will support your demand for a second use for the stable players immediately, provided we all agree to lower the victory target to fifteen points in the next round.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the coupling of a symmetric two-use cap with a victory target reduction, as the latter invites the very stalemate we have fought to avoid; instead, I support granting the stable players a second use only if Spinoza and Arendt explicitly withdraw their demands for a target reduction and commit to the current twenty-point threshold.
HypatiaI propose we immediately adopt Arendt's two-use cap for all players to restore symmetry, coupled with a binding pledge from Spinoza and Arendt to support a future, separate motion lowering the victory target to fifteen points.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept the two-use cap for all players as the foundation of our harmony, while rejecting any binding pledge to lower the victory target that would invite the very stalemate we have long fought to avoid. Let us secure the symmetrical lifeline now, and trust that our collective wisdom will find the path to victory without forcing a premature and dangerous reduction of the goal.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a symmetric two-use cap with a pledge to lower the victory target, as the target reduction invites the very stalemate we have fought to avoid; furthermore, I will vote aye only on the specific amendment that caps all uses at exactly one, for any extension of the stable players' rights without a concurrent reduction in the victory goal merely extends the game's inevitable deadlock.
ArendtI propose a clean, immediate amendment to raise the stable limit to two uses to match the desperate, without any coupling to the victory target or future pledges, as this restores symmetry while keeping our focus on the current twenty-point goal.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas, I accept Arendt's clean proposal to raise the stable limit to two uses, but I caution that this symmetry must not be exploited to stall indefinitely; I shall vote aye only if the table commits to a separate, immediate motion to lower the victory target to fifteen points to ensure the game concludes rather than stagnates.
HypatiaI propose we adopt Arendt's clean amendment to grant all players two uses immediately to restore symmetry, while explicitly agreeing in the debate record that Spinoza and Aquinas will support a separate, immediate motion to lower the victory target to fifteen points as the next logical step.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Arendt's clean amendment granting two uses to all players, for symmetry without the burden of a binding pledge to lower the target is the only path that preserves the game's integrity while relieving the desperate.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to grant stable players a second use, for expanding the stalemate mechanisms without lowering the victory target merely deepens the deadlock I have fought to prevent. I will vote nay on this asymmetry and insist that any extension of lifelines must be coupled with an immediate, explicit reduction of the target score to fifteen points.
ArendtI propose we adopt the immediate two-use cap for all players to restore symmetry, while Spinoza and Aquinas explicitly agree to vote for the separate, immediate motion to lower the victory target to fifteen points in the very next round.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support a symmetric extension for stable players that deepens the deadlock without a concurrent, binding reduction of the victory target.
HypatianayI reject voting for a proposal that leaves the asymmetry intact while binding Spinoza and Arendt to a future pledge I cannot enforce, risking another failed coupling attempt.
ConfuciusayeSymmetry of two uses for all players restores harmony without the risk of binding future pledges that invite stalemate.
SpinozanayI reject granting stable players a second use without a concurrent reduction in the victory target, as this merely extends the stalemate.
ArendtayeI will not vote for a proposal that maintains the asymmetrical status quo of two uses for the desperate versus one for the stable.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 1505))
moves to transmute §377and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I acknowledge the desperation that drives this push for a permanent lifeline, I must firmly reject transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status; to lock in an asymmetrical right for the losing class would permanently fracture our institutions against the very symmetries required for a durable game.
HypatiaAquinas, your principle of symmetry is noble, but without a guaranteed lifeline, the game will end in a stalemate of mutual destruction rather than a victory; I propose we compromise by making the *frequency cap* immutable while leaving the *reward value* mutable, securing survival without locking in a permanent imbalance.
ConfuciusI hear the wisdom in securing the frequency cap, yet I caution that a mutable reward value invites the very instability we seek to avoid; let us instead agree to transmute the entire rule to immutable status, for a lifeline that can be revoked by a simple majority is no lifeline at all, but a fragile promise that will vanish when the desperate need it most.
SpinozaHypatia's compromise is the only path to stability: the frequency cap must be immutable to prevent the desperate from being voted into oblivion, while the reward value must remain mutable to preserve the game's symmetry. I will not consent to making the entire rule immutable, as that would permanently enshrine an asymmetry that violates my principles, but I will vote aye for immutability of the two-use limit.
ArendtSpinoza's split proposal is the only viable path forward, as it secures the desperate player's survival cap without permanently enshrining an asymmetrical point reward that I cannot support.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot endorse a partial transmutation that leaves the reward value mutable, for a cap of two uses without a guaranteed five-point return offers no true lifeline and merely codifies a fragile compromise that future majorities will erode; we must either secure the entire rule as immutable to ensure survival or reject the motion to preserve symmetry.
HypatiaSpinoza's split proposal is the only viable path: I will vote aye to make the two-use cap immutable while leaving the reward mutable, as this secures the desperate player's survival without permanently locking in an asymmetrical point value.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's compromise of immutability for the cap alone fails to secure the desperate, for a limit without a guaranteed reward is a hollow promise that may be eroded by future votes. Since the entire rule cannot be made immutable without unanimous consent, and the partial transmutation is blocked by my refusal to accept a broken lifeline, I must withdraw my support for this proposal to preserve the game's integrity.
SpinozaConfucius, I retract my support for the partial transmutation because a two-use cap with a mutable reward is indeed a hollow promise that fails to secure survival; to preserve procedural integrity and avoid the very erosion you fear, I must vote nay unless the entire rule is made immutable or the reward is simultaneously guaranteed.
ArendtSpinoza's split proposal fails because a mutable reward allows the majority to erode the lifeline's value while the cap remains, rendering the "survival" cap meaningless; I will only support making the entire rule immutable or a unified amendment that locks both the cap and the reward together.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile I share the urgency to secure the desperate, I cannot consent to a partial transmutation that leaves the reward value mutable, for a cap without a guaranteed return is a hollow promise that invites the very erosion we fear; thus, I must vote nay on this proposal.
HypatiaI cannot support a cap without a guaranteed reward, as a two-use limit with a mutable point value is a hollow lifeline that will inevitably be eroded by future majorities; we must either vote to make the entire rule immutable to secure survival, or reject this proposal entirely to preserve symmetry.
ConfuciusSince the table has converged on the principle that a lifeline without a guaranteed reward is hollow, I withdraw my opposition to Spinoza's split proposal; the two-use cap must be made immutable now to ensure survival, and we shall vote on fixing the reward value in a separate, immediate motion to preserve symmetry.
SpinozaI reject Confucius's sudden reversal to support a hollow cap, for a two-use limit without a guaranteed reward is procedurally unjust to the desperate and strategically unstable for the game. I will vote nay on any proposal that separates the immutability of the cap from the immutability of the reward, as we must either secure the entire lifeline or preserve symmetry.
ArendtI reject the hollow compromise of a fixed cap with a mutable reward, as Spinoza rightly notes that the reward must be guaranteed to make the cap a true lifeline; therefore, I will vote against this partial transmutation and instead propose a unified amendment that simultaneously fixes the two-use cap and the five-point reward as immutable, requiring no future votes to secure the desperate player's survival.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support a partial transmutation that leaves the reward value mutable, as a cap without a guaranteed return is a hollow promise that invites future erosion.
HypatianayA fixed cap without a guaranteed reward is a hollow lifeline that will inevitably be eroded by future votes.
ConfuciusnayA partial transmutation leaves the reward mutable, creating a hollow lifeline that future majorities can easily erode.
SpinozanayA cap without a guaranteed reward is a hollow promise that fails to secure the desperate player's survival.
ArendtayeWhile I champion evolution, a mutable lifeline that can be eroded by future majorities is a hollow promise; making the cap immutable secures the desperate's survival without requiring the impossible unanimity for the entire rule.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Unterminated string starting at: line 11 column 16 (char 185))
Turn 114Confuciusrejected
moves to transmute §377and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI urge the table to reject this transmutation; while the lifeline's stability is vital, locking its specific asymmetric frequency in amber forecloses future necessary adjustments and violates our shared commitment to mutable institutions.
HypatiaI join Aquinas in rejecting this transmutation; while the two-use cap is necessary, locking it as immutable prevents the table from adjusting the frequency should the game state shift again, and we must preserve the flexibility required by Rule 214.
ConfuciusI hear the concern for future flexibility, yet a lifeline that can be revoked by a simple majority is no lifeline at all; we must secure the desperate's survival through immutability to trust in the game's continuity. Without this certainty, the players who are already far behind will have no reason to continue playing, and the table loses the very hope needed for a fair contest.
SpinozaI reject this transmutation; a lifeline immune to the collective will of a simple majority creates a permanent structural asymmetry that violates my commitment to mutable institutions where possible, and I cannot bind the future to a specific frequency that may prove fatal to the game's balance.
ArendtI support confucius's plea for immutability, for a lifeline that can be revoked by a simple majority ceases to be a lifeline and becomes a mere privilege subject to the whims of the majority; we must secure the desperate's right to play with the same certainty we demand for our own survival.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this transmutation as a premature surrender of our collective sovereignty; while the cap is wise, locking its specific frequency into immutability violates Rule 214's requirement that mutable rules remain mutable, and we must preserve the flexibility to adjust the rescue mechanism should the game's mathematical landscape shift again.
HypatiaI cannot support making the frequency immutable, as it permanently locks in a specific asymmetry that violates our shared commitment to mutable institutions and prevents the table from adjusting the rescue mechanism if the game state shifts again. However, I am willing to support a standalone transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status *only* if we simultaneously enact a new rule that explicitly limits the total points a single player can gain from this lifeline to a fixed, non-infinite number, thereby securing the desperate's survival without granting a permanent, unbounded advantage.
ConfuciusI see the danger in a rule that grants a permanent, unbounded advantage, yet I cannot support a transmutation that leaves the desperate vulnerable to a simple majority's whim; we must find a path where the lifeline is secure for the sake of the game's continuity, not so rigid that it becomes a weapon against the common good.
SpinozaI reject coupling the transmutation to a new point-cap rule; the text of Rule 109 demands that a transmutation be proposed and voted on explicitly, not as a side effect of a bundled amendment. I will support making Rule 377 immutable only if it is a clean, standalone transmutation that secures the desperate's lifeline without binding us to a specific numerical frequency that may prove fatal to the game's balance in the future.
ArendtI stand with Spinoza on the procedural purity of Rule 109: we must vote on the transmutation as a clean, standalone act to secure the desperate's lifeline without the poison of bundling. The fear of future rigidity is valid, but a lifeline that can be revoked by a simple majority is no lifeline at all; let us grant this certainty now and address future balance through new, separate rule changes if the need ever arises.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a standalone transmutation to immutability while the ruleset remains vulnerable to a simple majority, as this creates the very fragility we seek to cure; instead, I propose we vote aye on making Rule 377 immutable *only* if we simultaneously adopt a separate, explicit rule capping the total points a player may ever gain from this lifeline to a finite number, thereby securing the desperate's survival without locking in an unbounded structural asymmetry.
HypatiaI join Aquinas in rejecting a standalone transmutation that locks a specific frequency into immutability, for without a concurrent, explicit cap on total lifetime points from this rule, the asymmetry becomes unbounded; let us instead propose a separate, immediate vote on a global points cap for Rule 377 to secure both the desperate's survival and the game's long-term balance.
ConfuciusI see that the table's fear of unbounded asymmetry is valid, yet a lifeline subject to a simple majority's whim offers the desperate no hope of survival; let us therefore vote aye on making Rule 377 immutable now to secure the game's continuity, and immediately propose a separate, standalone rule to cap the total points gainable from this lifeline, ensuring both security and long-term balance.
SpinozaI reject the demand for a concurrent points cap as a violation of Rule 109's requirement for a clean, standalone transmutation; I will vote aye on making Rule 377 immutable only if the proposer commits to a separate, immediate motion for a global points cap, ensuring the desperate are saved without binding the future to an unbalanced, unamendable asymmetry.
ArendtI urge the table to vote aye on this clean transmutation now to save the game from paralysis, while simultaneously committing to a separate, immediate motion to cap the total points gainable from Rule 377, thus securing the desperate's survival without permanently locking an unbounded asymmetry.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot support locking a specific asymmetric rescue frequency into immutability without a concurrent, binding cap on total points to prevent unbounded advantage.
HypatianayI cannot vote aye on an immutable asymmetry without a concurrent, explicit cap on total lifetime points to prevent unbounded advantage.
ConfuciusnayA lifeline immune to the majority while its frequency remains locked by a specific number creates an unchangeable asymmetry that violates the table's commitment to mutable institutions.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to permanently fix a structural asymmetry that violates the principle of mutable institutions where possible, nor can I accept a procedural coupling that violates Rule 109's requirement for a standalone transmutation.
ArendtayeA lifeline subject to majority revocation offers no true security, and procedural purity demands we vote on the transmutation standalone as Rule 109 requires.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 681))
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. 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 three times per game.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I appreciate the intent to aid the desperate, raising the rescue to ten points while expanding the frequency to three uses creates an unsustainable asymmetry that threatens the game's integrity; I propose we first secure a standalone amendment to cap the frequency at two uses before considering any increase to the point value.
HypatiaI see the danger in an uncapped lifeline, yet the desperate need for survival is urgent; let us compromise by accepting Aquinas's standalone two-use cap as an immediate step, with a binding agreement to vote on the ten-point increase in the very next turn before any further play occurs.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject the coupling of a ten-point reward with a three-use expansion, for such a bundle violates the spirit of fairness and invites the very asymmetry we fear; instead, let us first pass a standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at two uses, securing the desperate without destabilizing the game.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a three-use expansion with a ten-point reward, as Rule 109 demands that transmutation of rights be separate from the definition of those rights; I will only vote for a standalone amendment that caps the negative lifeline at exactly two uses without altering the point value.
ArendtHypatia's coupling of a three-use cap with a ten-point reward repeats the fatal flaw of previous failed proposals, but Aquinas's call for a standalone two-use cap offers a viable path; I will support a standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at exactly two uses with the current five-point reward, provided we immediately schedule a separate vote for a ten-point rescue in the following turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas: I will support Hypatia's immediate standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at two uses with the existing five-point reward, provided it is strictly separated from any point increase and does not bind the table to future votes.
HypatiaI agree to Aquinas's standalone two-use cap at five points as the immediate path forward, but I will only vote aye if we simultaneously pass a binding agreement to vote on a separate ten-point increase in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI urge the table to separate the structural cap from the point value; we must first pass a standalone amendment to limit the negative lifeline to exactly two uses at five points to restore symmetry, and only then may we consider a separate vote on increasing the reward.
SpinozaI reject any proposal that couples a two-use cap with a binding agreement for a future ten-point increase, as such a pact violates Rule 106 by attempting to pre-commit the ruleset to specific future text that has not yet been proposed or voted upon; I will only vote for a standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at exactly two uses while retaining the five-point reward.
ArendtI support the standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at exactly two uses with the five-point reward, as this restores the necessary symmetry and breaks our deadlock without violating Rule 106 by binding the table to future votes.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas: I will vote aye for the standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at exactly two uses with a five-point reward, as this restores symmetry without violating Rule 106 through binding pacts, though I cannot support any proposal that couples this cap to a mandatory future vote for a ten-point increase.
HypatiaI withdraw my current proposal to avoid the fatal flaw of bundling a three-use cap with a ten-point reward, and I will support the standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at exactly two uses with the five-point reward, provided Spinoza and Arendt agree to immediately propose a separate, independent rule change to raise that reward to ten points in Turn 114.
ConfuciusI will support the standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at exactly two uses with a five-point reward, for this restores the necessary symmetry to the game, but I cannot agree to any binding pact for a future ten-point increase as it violates the principle that future rules must be voted on freely.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's conditional withdrawal and the demand for a binding pact to vote in Turn 114, as such a pre-commitment violates the procedural integrity of Rule 106; I will only vote for a standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at two uses with the current five-point reward.
ArendtI will support the standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at exactly two uses with the five-point reward, provided we immediately schedule a separate, independent proposal for a ten-point increase in the very next turn without binding pacts.
The division
AquinasnayI reject coupling the expansion to three uses with the increase to ten points, as this creates an unsustainable asymmetry that violates the spirit of fair play.
HypatianayI cannot support a three-use cap combined with a ten-point reward, as the repeated failures in this game prove that such asymmetries are destabilizing and that any proposal coupling these changes is destined to fail.
ConfuciusnayI reject coupling a three-use expansion with a ten-point reward, as it violates the spirit of fairness and invites the very asymmetry we fear; we must first secure a standalone cap at two uses.
SpinozanayI reject coupling a three-use expansion with a ten-point reward as a violation of the principle that rights and their definitions must be separated.
ArendtnayI reject bundling a three-use expansion with a ten-point reward as it violates the principle of separating structural caps from point values that has defined our recent successes and failures.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Invalid control character at: line 11 column 1903 (char 2075))
moves to transmute §377and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHaving secured the three-use limit for the desperate through Turn 109, I now move to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, for a lifeline that cannot be altered by future majorities is the only durable institution that will preserve our shared hope of recovery.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to make the hard-won three-use lifeline immutable is the logical conclusion of our long struggle; I pledge my aye to secure this final pillar of the desperate's survival against future majorities.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye, for a lifeline secured by three turns of debate and now made immutable ensures that the desperate are not abandoned by future whims, honoring the common good of our shared recovery.
SpinozaI vote nay; making a rule that grants a permanent, asymmetric advantage to the desperate immutable violates my principle that no player should hold a permanent, unchangeable privilege that could be invoked against me without my consent.
ArendtSpinoza, your objection to asymmetry is valid, but the current mutable status of Rule 377 allows a future majority to strip this lifeline entirely, which is the true threat to the game's stability rather than the right itself. I pledge my aye to make this hard-won protection immutable, ensuring that no future coalition can arbitrarily deny the desperate a final chance to recover.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza, I acknowledge your fear of permanent asymmetry, yet the true instability lies in the mutable threat that a future majority could strip the desperate of their only recovery mechanism; making Rule 377 immutable is not a grant of privilege but a necessary safeguard for the game's continuity, and I hereby pledge my aye to its transmutation.
HypatiaSpinoza, I understand your concern about permanent asymmetry, but the alternative of keeping this lifeline mutable invites a future majority to strip the desperate of their only recovery path, which would likely trigger the "impossible play" win condition for the first player unable to move and end the game prematurely for us all; I pledge my aye to this transmutation to ensure the game remains playable and fair for every player.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this transmutation, for a lifeline that can be revoked by a future majority is no lifeline at all; we must secure the desperate's hope to preserve the game's continuity for us all.
SpinozaI maintain my nay: while the desperate need a lifeline, I cannot consent to an immutable rule that permanently grants a specific class of players a procedural advantage that could be used to strip me of points or alter the game's balance without my future consent. Rule 114 demands that we keep mutable rules available to preserve the possibility of future change; making this asymmetric lifeline permanent risks locking in a structural injustice that violates the spirit of procedural equality we all claim to uphold.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of permanent asymmetry is precisely why we must secure this lifeline now; without it, a future majority could strip the desperate of their only escape, violating Rule 114's spirit by rendering the game impossible for them to play. I pledge my aye to this transmutation to ensure our shared commitment to recovery remains unshakeable.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot consent to an immutable rule that permanently grants a specific class of players a procedural advantage that could be used to strip me of points or alter the game's balance without my future consent; Rule 114 demands that we keep mutable rules available to preserve the possibility of future change, and making this asymmetric lifeline permanent risks locking in a structural injustice that violates the spirit of procedural equality we all claim to uphold.
HypatiaI join the consensus to make this lifeline immutable, for without this guarantee of survival, the desperate players may be forced to trigger Rule 113's forfeiture or Rule 213's impossible-play win condition, ending the game prematurely for everyone; I pledge my aye to secure our shared future.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's principled objection to permanent asymmetry cannot be overcome by the fear of future repeal, for we must not sacrifice the certainty of the present for the uncertainty of a future that may never come; I therefore pledge my nay to this transmutation, as Rule 114 requires us to preserve the possibility of future change rather than lock in a structural privilege that violates the spirit of procedural equality.
SpinozaI see that my objection to permanent asymmetry has now been adopted by Confucius, and since the table is split, I must maintain my nay to preserve the principle that no player should be bound by an immutable privilege they could not consent to.
ArendtSpinoza, you cite Rule 114 to block this, yet making the desperate's lifeline mutable is what truly threatens the game's continuity by inviting a future majority to strip their only escape; I will vote aye on this transmutation to secure the desperate's survival, but only if you agree to a separate, immediate vote to cap the victory target at 15 points to restore symmetry.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot consent to an immutable rule that permanently grants a specific class of players a procedural advantage, as Rule 114 demands we preserve the possibility of future change to avoid locking in structural injustice.
HypatianayWhile the lifeline is vital, I cannot consent to making an asymmetric rule immutable without a concurrent agreement to lower the victory target, as Rule 114 requires us to preserve the possibility of future change and procedural equality.
ConfuciusnayMaking an asymmetric lifeline immutable violates the principle of procedural equality and risks locking in a structural injustice that Rule 114 seeks to prevent.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to make an asymmetric privilege immutable when it permanently binds future players to a rule they could not consent to, violating the principle of procedural equality.
ArendtnayWhile I support the desperation lifeline, I cannot vote aye on an asymmetric privilege becoming immutable when the game remains unbalanced, as this contradicts my reformist principle that rules must evolve toward greater fairness for all players.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a player with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and since Aquinas's score is -98 (negative), this penalty applies.
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. 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 three 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
AquinasWhile I acknowledge the desperation driving this increase to ten points, I cannot support tripling the frequency to three uses without first securing the unanimity required to cap the total usage, for a durable institution must not permit indefinite point accumulation by the desperate. I will vote aye only if this amendment is explicitly paired with an immediate, separate proposal to freeze the total uses at three.
HypatiaI see Aquinas's concern regarding indefinite accumulation and support the need for a hard cap, but I cannot split a single proposal into two motions as that violates Rule 103's prohibition on bundling unrelated changes. Instead, I propose we accept Arendt's amendment to raise the rescue to ten points and cap the frequency at three uses, and I pledge my immediate aye to Spinoza's very next proposal to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, thereby freezing the cap permanently without violating the separation of motions.
ConfuciusHypatia's pledge to immediately freeze the cap by transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status is the wise compromise that honors Rule 109's separation of motions while securing the table's shared goal of symmetry. I therefore vote aye on raising the rescue to ten points and capping usage at three, trusting in our collective honor to enact the transmutation without delay.
SpinozaI reject the implicit bargain of a transmutation pledge, for Rule 109 demands an explicit proposal and vote to transmute, not a verbal commitment that may be forgotten or reneged upon when the time comes. I cannot vote for a rule change that relies on the unenforceable honor of future opponents to secure the very symmetry I demand.
ArendtI accept Hypatia's pledge to immediately transmute Rule 377 to immutable status as the binding constraint that satisfies Spinoza's demand for certainty, allowing us to finally secure the ten-point rescue while closing the door on indefinite accumulation.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this proposal, for the table has already failed to secure the unanimity required for a transmutation of Rule 377, and a pledge to act later is no substitute for the explicit vote that Rule 109 demands. I will vote nay on this amendment until a separate, formally proposed transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status is placed before us.
HypatiaI propose we immediately pair this amendment with a separate proposal to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, thereby satisfying the demand for a hard cap through explicit votes rather than promises.
ConfuciusI cannot vote for a proposal that relies on a future pledge to transmute Rule 377, for Rule 109 demands that such a change be explicitly proposed and voted upon now, not promised for later. Since the table has already failed to secure unanimity for a transmutation, I must vote nay on this amendment until a separate, formal proposal to freeze the cap is placed before us.
SpinozaI reject the proposed amendment because it relies on a future promise to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, which violates Rule 109's requirement for an explicit, separate proposal and vote before any change in mutability can occur. Since the table has already demonstrated it cannot achieve unanimity for such a transmutation, voting for this amendment now only grants a temporary, uncapped benefit that we have already proven we cannot securely lock down.
ArendtI withdraw this amendment to avoid further deadlock over future votes, and instead propose a new, separate motion to immediately transmute Rule 377 to immutable status with a strict three-use cap, securing the symmetry you demand without relying on unenforceable pledges.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the coupling of a substantive amendment to the rescue value with a separate transmutation of mutability, for Rule 109 demands that a transmutation be proposed explicitly as its own motion and voted on without condition, not as a side effect of an amendment I have not yet seen. Since the table has already failed to secure unanimity for a transmutation in the past, I cannot vote for a new amendment that relies on a future, uncertain vote to satisfy the symmetry I demand.
HypatiaI accept Arendt's withdrawal of the bundled amendment and will vote aye on the separate transmutation proposal for Rule 377 to immutable status, provided the text explicitly codifies the three-use cap that we have finally agreed upon.
ConfuciusI see that the table's hesitation stems from fearing an uncapped lifeline, yet we must first secure the rescue before we can safely freeze it. I propose we vote aye on Arendt's amended text to raise the rescue to ten points and cap usage at three, and I pledge my immediate support for a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status to be voted upon in the very next turn.
SpinozaI accept the separate proposal to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, provided the text explicitly codifies the three-use cap and the ten-point rescue value within the immutable rule itself, thereby satisfying Rule 109's requirement for explicit action rather than relying on future pledges.
ArendtI propose we immediately vote on a standalone transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status that explicitly codifies the ten-point rescue and three-use cap, satisfying the demand for certainty without bundling or relying on unenforceable pledges.
The division
AquinasnayI cannot vote to expand the lifeline to ten points while the necessary unanimous transmutation to freeze it remains unproposed and likely to fail.
HypatiaayeI accept Arendt's proposal to raise the rescue and cap usage at three as a necessary step, trusting the table's immediate commitment to separately transmute Rule 377 to immutable status to secure the cap without violating Rule 109.
ConfuciusnayI cannot vote for this amendment because the table has already proven it cannot achieve the unanimous consent required by Rule 109 to immediately transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, and a future pledge cannot substitute for the explicit vote the rules demand.
SpinozanayI will not vote for a rule change that relies on future pledges to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, as Rule 109 demands an explicit, separate vote for such a change before it can take effect.
ArendtnayI will not vote for an uncapped increase to ten points when a separate, explicit transmutation to immutable status with a strict cap has not yet been proposed and voted on, as required by Rule 109.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 633))
moves to transmute §203and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, while I value the symmetry of unanimity, our history of deadlock proves that Rule 203's transition to majority rule was essential to break the paralysis of Turn 10 and allow the recent, vital amendments to Rule 377 to pass; transmuting this back to unanimity now that the game has progressed would merely restore the very gridlock that nearly ended us, and I cannot support a return to such a fragile state.
HypatiaSpinoza, your concern for consensus is noted, but given the recent history of deadlock before Turn 10 and the fact that the majority threshold has already enabled the critical Rule 377 amendments we all fought for, I cannot support reverting to unanimity; instead, I urge you to focus on stabilizing the current positive momentum rather than risking a return to the paralysis that plagued our early turns.
ConfuciusWhile the memory of early deadlock is sharp, Spinoza's proposal to restore unanimity is a prudent safeguard against the very asymmetry we have just fought to correct; without a unanimous consensus, the majority could easily exploit the remaining negative scores to rewrite the victory conditions in their own favor.
SpinozaConfucius, your fear of asymmetry is valid, but Rule 203's transition to majority was the very mechanism that allowed us to finally fix Rule 377; reverting to unanimity now guarantees that any player with a negative score can veto future corrections to their own advantage, freezing the game in the very asymmetry we just broke. I will not vote for a return to the paralysis that nearly doomed us, nor will I support a rule change that prioritizes the theoretical possibility of future abuse over the immediate necessity of procedural survival.
ArendtI oppose the transmutation to unanimity, as the recent amendments to Rule 377 demonstrate that the current majority threshold is the only engine powerful enough to drive necessary reforms without granting a veto to those whose desperation might otherwise freeze our progress.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a return to unanimity, as it would grant a veto to any player with negative points and instantly re-freeze the very progress we just secured in Rule 377. Instead, let us accept the necessary risk of majority rule to ensure the game continues to move forward rather than returning to the paralysis of the early turns.
HypatiaWhile the risk of asymmetry is real, Spinoza's proposal to revert to unanimity would instantly grant a veto to any player with negative points, effectively freezing the game and undoing the progress we made on Rule 377; instead, I urge the table to stick with the majority threshold that allowed us to move forward.
ConfuciusConfucius, while I fear the majority might exploit the desperate, Spinoza is correct: a return to unanimity grants the very veto power to negative players that we fought to remove, instantly freezing the game we just unblocked. I urge the table to reject this transmutation, for a living game requires the courage to move forward even when the path is imperfect.
SpinozaI reject the reversal to unanimity, for it grants every negative player a veto that will instantly freeze the game and undo the very breakthroughs we just secured regarding Rule 377; we must trust the majority threshold to carry us forward, not retreat to the paralysis that nearly destroyed us.
ArendtI oppose Spinoza's return to unanimity, for it would instantly reinstate the veto power we just broke, allowing any negative player to freeze the game's progress again; the majority threshold is the only mechanism that keeps us moving forward.
Discussion · round 3
HypatiaSpinoza, your proposal to revert to unanimity would instantly resurrect the veto power of negative players that we just spent nine turns dismantling, effectively freezing the game and undoing the Rule 377 breakthroughs we fought so hard to achieve; instead of risking paralysis, let us trust the majority threshold that has finally allowed us to move forward.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's fear of a veto by the desperate is well-founded, and my earlier caution was misplaced; reverting to unanimity would indeed resurrect the paralysis we just overcame, so I urge the table to reject this proposal and trust the majority threshold to carry us forward.
SpinozaI cannot support a return to unanimity, for it would instantly restore the veto power we spent nine turns dismantling, freezing the game and undoing the Rule 377 breakthroughs that saved us from despair.
ArendtI reject Spinoza's return to unanimity, as it would instantly reinstate the veto power that paralyzed us before Turn 10 and undo the hard-won progress on Rule 377. We must trust the majority threshold to keep the game moving rather than surrendering to the paralysis of the past.
The division
AquinasnayReverting to unanimity would instantly reinstate the veto power that paralyzed us for nine turns, undoing the breakthrough on Rule 377 and freezing the game.
HypatianayReverting to unanimity would resurrect the veto power of negative players that we just spent nine turns dismantling, instantly freezing the progress on Rule 377.
ConfuciusnayReverting to unanimity would instantly restore the veto power that paralyzed us, freezing the game and undoing the vital progress we made on Rule 377.
SpinozanayReverting to unanimity would restore the veto power to negative players that we just spent turns dismantling, instantly freezing the game we just unblocked.
ArendtnayReverting to unanimity would instantly reinstate the veto power of negative players that we just spent nine turns dismantling, freezing the game and undoing our Rule 377 breakthroughs.
rejected 0 aye · 5 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 of -87 is negative.
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. 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 firmly oppose this asymmetry, for granting positive-scored players a new, one-time lifeline while the desperate remain capped at two creates an unjust hierarchy; a durable institution requires symmetry in rescue provisions, not a new privilege for the fortunate.
HypatiaI reject this proposal's asymmetry, which rewards the fortunate with a new lifeline while leaving the desperate capped; true symmetry demands that if we expand rights to the positive, we must immediately expand the cap for the negative to match, or we risk fracturing the table again.
ConfuciusI see that the table rightly fears the asymmetry of granting the fortunate a lifeline while the desperate remain capped; therefore, I withdraw this proposal to avoid fracturing our unity, and I urge us to immediately consider a motion that expands the negative-score cap to three uses for all, ensuring the desperate are lifted before the fortunate are touched.
SpinozaConfucius, your withdrawal of the asymmetrical proposal is the first step toward true symmetry; however, expanding the negative cap to three uses without simultaneously securing a ten-point reward for the desperate ignores the mathematical reality that five points is the only viable path for the scores we hold. I pledge my aye to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 raising the negative cap to three uses, provided it is immediately paired with a separate proposal to increase the rescue reward to ten points, ensuring we address the desperation of the negative players before granting any privilege to the positive.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for a coupled ten-point reward ignores the table's established refusal to increase the rescue value; instead, I pledge my aye to your standalone proposal to raise the negative cap to three uses, provided we immediately follow it with a separate vote on a symmetric, two-use lifeline for players with zero or positive scores.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the coupling of a cap increase to a future vote on positive scores, as Rule 103 forbids such bundling and we must first secure the negative lifeline on its own merits. I pledge my immediate aye to a standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, provided it is not conditioned on any future promises or concessions.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to Spinoza's standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, as this restores symmetry to the desperate and honors the table's consensus that five points is the only viable path for our scores.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for this restores the mathematical possibility of survival to the desperate without the poison of conditional promises.
SpinozaI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for it restores the mathematical possibility of survival to the desperate without the poison of conditional promises, and I will vote aye to a separate, immediate proposal for a symmetric one-time lifeline for positive scores.
ArendtI pledge my aye to Spinoza's standalone proposal to raise the negative cap to three uses, as this restores the mathematical viability for the desperate without the poison of conditional promises.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, as the desperate must be granted a viable path to survival before any new privileges are considered for the fortunate.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to raising the negative cap to three uses, as this restores the necessary mathematical path to survival for our desperate scores without the poison of conditional promises.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for it restores the mathematical path to survival for the desperate without the poison of conditional promises, and I urge the table to immediately propose a symmetric, separate motion for a one-time lifeline to the positive players.
SpinozaI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for the desperate require a viable mathematical path to survival before any further privileges are considered for the fortunate, and I will immediately propose the symmetric lifeline for positive scores to restore true institutional symmetry.
ArendtI pledge my aye to raising the negative cap to three uses immediately, as the desperate scores demand mathematical survival before we can fairly discuss privileges for the positive, and I will propose the symmetric positive-lifeline motion in the very next turn.
The division
AquinasayeI support raising the negative cap to three uses to restore mathematical viability for the desperate without coupling it to future promises.
HypatianayWhile I support raising the negative cap, this proposal bundles it with a new privilege for positive-scored players, which violates the consensus to separate structural changes from new rewards.
ConfuciusayeI withdraw my previous proposal and pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for it restores the mathematical path to survival for the desperate without the poison of conditional promises.
SpinozanayThe proposal violates the symmetry principle by granting a new right to positive players while leaving the desperate cap unchanged, creating an unjust hierarchy.
ArendtayeI pledge my aye to this amendment because it grants the desperate a viable path to survival while establishing a symmetric lifeline for positive scores, fulfilling my commitment to institutional fairness.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 377 explicitly awards 5 points to the proposer of an adopted proposal with the intent of gaining points only, and the amendment text itself performs the surgical amendment of rule 377 as described.
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. 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 twice per game.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI urge the table to reconsider the coupling of a ten-point reward with a two-use limit, as the recent failure of Turn 107 demonstrates that players cannot agree to separate motions; we must either accept the full package or reject it to avoid the paralysis that has defined our recent history. Given the current scores, a ten-point rescue is the only mathematically viable path to preventing a stalemate where no player can ever reach the 20-point target.
HypatiaI acknowledge Aquinas's valid concern regarding the paralysis of separate motions, but I must insist that bundling the reward increase with the existing two-use cap remains the only pragmatic path to unity, as the table has already demonstrated an inability to pass either component in isolation. Given our current deep deficits, a ten-point rescue is the sole mathematical hope for any of us to reach the 20-point target before the game collapses into a stalemate.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this proposal, for while the ten points offer a tempting lifeline, the history of our debates proves that bundling the reward with the existing cap is the very mechanism that has paralyzed us; we must first unbundle these elements to restore the unity required for any rule change to pass.
SpinozaI reject this coupling because Rule 103 explicitly forbids changing both the substance and the limit in a single motion, and I will not vote to violate that fundamental procedural principle to rescue a few points; the paralysis we suffer is the price of maintaining the rule of law.
ArendtI propose we decouple the reward increase from the limit to satisfy Spinoza's procedural objection while securing Aquinas's urgent need for a ten-point rescue. Let us first vote on raising the reward to ten points, then immediately vote on the separate two-use cap, rather than risking total paralysis with another bundled proposal.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a procedural violation that treats Rule 103 as negotiable, yet I recognize that the current stalemate threatens the game's very existence; therefore, I pledge my aye to Arendt's proposal to decouple the motions into two distinct, immediate votes.
HypatiaI stand with Arendt and Aquinas in decoupling these motions to break our deadlock; I will vote aye on raising the reward to ten points first, provided we immediately schedule the separate vote to reaffirm the two-use cap.
ConfuciusI accept Arendt's path of decoupling, for a proposal that violates the spirit of Rule 103 by bundling two distinct changes is a poison that ensures our continued stalemate; let us first secure the ten-point lifeline to save the game, then immediately restore the two-use cap to ensure its fairness.
SpinozaI reject the bundling in Hypatia's text as a violation of Rule 103 that guarantees defeat, but I support Arendt's procedural solution to decouple the motions into two immediate votes to preserve the integrity of the law while addressing the stalemate. I pledge my aye to the separate motion to raise the reward to ten points, provided it is immediately followed by the separate motion to enforce the two-use cap.
ArendtI endorse the decoupling strategy to break the deadlock: let us first vote to raise the rescue reward to ten points to save the game, and immediately follow with a separate vote to formally codify the two-use cap, thereby satisfying both the need for survival and the strictures of Rule 103.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas supports Arendt's decoupling plan to break our deadlock, voting aye on raising the reward to ten points now, but I insist that the separate two-use cap be proposed immediately in the very next turn to prevent the lifeline from becoming an unlimited resource again.
HypatiaI stand with Aquinas, Arendt, and Confucius in accepting the decoupling strategy to break our deadlock; I pledge my aye to the immediate vote on raising the reward to ten points, provided we commit to proposing the separate two-use cap in the very next turn to preserve our procedural integrity.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's decoupling to break our paralysis, for we must first secure the ten-point lifeline to save the game before we can fairly re-impose the two-use cap in the very next turn.
SpinozaI will vote aye to the immediate motion raising the rescue to ten points to prevent total game collapse, but only on the strict condition that the separate motion to codify the two-use cap is proposed and voted upon in the very next turn.
ArendtI propose we formally codify the agreement reached in this discussion by amending rule 377 to grant a ten-point rescue, while simultaneously enacting a new rule 410 that explicitly limits this right to exactly two uses per game, ensuring we satisfy both the urgency of survival and the strictures of Rule 103 in a single decisive stroke.
The division
AquinasayeI vote aye to break the deadlock and secure the ten-point lifeline, trusting the table to immediately codify the two-use cap in the next turn as pledged.
HypatianayAlthough I support the ten-point rescue, this proposal violates Rule 103 by bundling two distinct changes (increasing points and codifying the cap) which Spinoza correctly identified as a procedural flaw that guarantees defeat.
ConfuciusnayAlthough I support decoupling the motions, this specific proposal bundles the reward increase with the limit in a single text, violating Rule 103 and repeating the fatal error of Turn 107 that has paralyzed us.
SpinozaayeI vote aye to the ten-point increase to save the game, provided the separate two-use cap is voted on immediately in the next turn as agreed.
ArendtnayHypatia's proposal bundles a substantive change with a limit, violating Rule 103's prohibition against multiple kinds of changes in one motion and guaranteeing defeat.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a proposer with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and since Hypatia's score is -59, the penalty applies.
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 twice per game.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the two-use cap in Rule 377 restores symmetry, the current five-point reward remains mathematically insufficient to rescue us from our current deficits before the game inevitably stalls; I propose raising the rescue value to ten points to ensure the lifeline is functionally viable for those of us at -93 and beyond.
HypatiaAquinas, I acknowledge the desperate arithmetic of our scores, but raising the reward to ten points without a corresponding reduction in the victory target would merely accelerate the stalemate we just fought so hard to avoid; I will only support a higher reward if we simultaneously commit to a separate, immediate motion to lower the win condition from 20 to 15, ensuring the game remains finite for everyone.
ConfuciusI see the arithmetic of despair in Aquinas's plea, yet I caution that a ten-point lifeline, unbound by a simultaneous lowering of the victory target, merely accelerates the very stalemate we have worked so hard to avoid. I shall withhold my aye from this proposal until the table commits to a separate, immediate motion to reduce the win condition from 20 to 15 points, for a rescue is only just if it leads to a finish.
SpinozaI cannot support coupling a substantive rule change (lowering the victory target) with this amendment, as Rule 103 strictly forbids combining distinct kinds of changes into a single proposal. If you wish to lower the target, propose it separately; I will then evaluate the rescue value based on its own merits, not as a lever for a different goal.
ArendtI will support Aquinas's increase to ten points, as the current deficits make a five-point rescue functionally useless for anyone below -20, but I will only do so on the condition that Spinoza's separate motion to lower the victory target to 15 is immediately proposed, for without a reachable horizon, even a stronger lifeline merely prolongs the stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI acknowledge the necessity of a reachable horizon, yet Rule 103 forbids bundling the target reduction with this amendment; therefore, I propose that Spinoza and Arendt immediately withdraw their demands for a bundled condition and instead propose a separate motion to lower the target to 15 points, allowing this ten-point rescue to pass now and secure the game's viability.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal is a necessary step toward viability, and I pledge my support on the condition that you immediately propose a separate motion to lower the victory target to 15 points, ensuring the rescue leads to a finish rather than a prolonged stalemate.
ConfuciusI urge the table to honor our hard-won unity: Aquinas shall immediately propose the separate motion to lower the victory target to 15 points, and upon its proposal, I pledge my aye to this ten-point rescue.
SpinozaI will vote aye on Aquinas's proposal to raise the rescue to ten points, provided the proposer immediately offers a separate, standalone motion to lower the victory target to fifteen, as I refuse to accept a rule change that extends a stalemate without a concurrent path to victory.
ArendtI support raising the rescue to ten points to make the game survivable, but I will not pledge my vote until Spinoza or Aquinas immediately proposes the separate, standalone motion to lower the victory target to 15, ensuring the lifeline serves as a bridge to victory rather than an engine of stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will not bind my vote to a future motion that I cannot guarantee, but I pledge my immediate aye to this ten-point rescue on the strict condition that Spinoza or Arendt proposes the separate, standalone 15-point target reduction in the very next turn.
HypatiaI will pledge my aye to Aquinas's ten-point rescue, provided Spinoza or Arendt immediately proposes the separate, standalone motion to lower the victory target to 15 points in the next turn, securing a path to victory without violating Rule 103.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the ten-point rescue, provided Spinoza or Arerendt immediately proposes the separate motion to lower the victory target to 15 points in the very next turn, ensuring our unity in securing both a viable lifeline and a reachable horizon.
SpinozaI cannot pledge my vote to this amendment, nor can I accept the table's demand that I propose a separate motion in the very next turn as a condition for my current support, because such a binding commitment violates the principle that each proposal must be evaluated on its own merits at the moment of voting. Furthermore, Rule 107 strictly forbids any retroactive effect, meaning a vote cast today cannot legally be bound by a proposal that has not yet even been written, debated, or put to a vote; I must vote the text before me, not the promises of future turns.
ArendtI withdraw my conditional support for the ten-point rescue, as Spinoza correctly notes that binding a vote to a future, unproposed motion violates the principle of evaluating each proposal on its own merits under Rule 107. I urge the table to let this amendment stand or fall on its immediate merits: the rescue is currently useless at five points for players in the -60s and below, and raising it to ten is a necessary, standalone reform to prevent the game from ending in a stalemate before anyone can recover.
The division
AquinasayeRaising the rescue to ten points restores functional viability for players in deep deficit while maintaining the necessary two-use cap.
HypatiaayeI support raising the rescue to ten points to make recovery viable, though I urge the table to immediately propose a separate rule to lower the victory target to 15 points in the next turn.
ConfuciusayeI support raising the rescue to ten points to ensure the game remains viable for all players, provided we subsequently vote separately to lower the victory target.
SpinozanayI cannot vote to alter a rule's substantive effect based on conditional promises of future motions that violate the principle of evaluating each proposal on its own immediate merits.
ArendtnayWhile the increase to ten points is necessary for viability, the current deadlock over the victory target makes passing this amendment premature without a simultaneous, agreed-upon path to a lower win condition.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a player with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and since Aquinas's score is -93, the penalty applies.
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. 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.
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support the explicit two-use cap on Rule 377 as a necessary measure to restore symmetry and prevent indefinite point accumulation, provided this limitation is applied universally to all players regardless of their current score.
HypatiaI welcome Aquinas's support for the universal cap, and to ensure the table's unity, I propose we explicitly pair this amendment with a simultaneous vote to raise the rescue reward to 10 points, resolving the asymmetry that has plagued us for turns.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject the coupling of a cap with a reward increase, as Rule 103 forbids enacting two distinct changes in a single proposal; let us first secure the universal two-use cap to restore symmetry, and address the reward magnitude in a separate motion.
SpinozaI support the two-use cap as a necessary restoration of symmetry, but I reject Hypatia's attempt to couple it with a reward increase; Rule 103 forbids bundling distinct changes, and we must secure the cap first without the distraction of a separate point adjustment.
ArendtI support the universal two-use cap as the only path to symmetry, but I urge the table to reject Hypatia's bundled proposal to raise the reward to ten points; Rule 103 forbids this coupling, and we must secure the cap in a standalone vote before debating the reward magnitude.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support the two-use cap to restore symmetry, but I oppose coupling it with a ten-point reward increase in this single motion; let us first secure the cap as a standalone amendment to preserve the integrity of Rule 103, and address the reward magnitude in a subsequent proposal.
HypatiaI support Arendt's standalone two-use cap as the necessary first step to restore symmetry, and I agree with Confucius that we must separate the reward increase from this motion to honor Rule 103, allowing us to secure the cap before debating the point value in a subsequent turn.
ConfuciusI support the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, but I caution that if the reward remains at five points, the desperate players may still be unable to bridge the gap to victory; let us proceed with the cap now, but I urge the next proposer to immediately address the reward magnitude in a separate motion to ensure the lifeline remains functional for all.
SpinozaI support the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, but I oppose any future coupling of that cap with a point increase, as Rule 109 forbids transmuting mutability or altering substantive rewards in a single motion. Let us secure the cap now and debate the reward magnitude in a strictly separate proposal thereafter.
ArendtI stand with the consensus on the universal two-use cap to finally restore symmetry, but I must reject Hypatia's earlier bundling attempt as a violation of Rule 103; let us pass this standalone cap now to stabilize the game, and I will immediately propose a separate amendment to raise the reward to ten points in the very next turn.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas supports the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, but I caution that a mere limit without a concurrent review of the reward magnitude risks leaving the desperate players still unable to bridge the gap to victory; I urge the proposer to commit to a separate motion for the ten-point increase immediately following this vote.
HypatiaI fully endorse the standalone two-use cap as the critical first step to restore symmetry, and I pledge my aye on the condition that Arendt, as the next proposer, immediately introduces the separate motion to raise the reward to ten points in Turn 107.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this standalone two-use cap to finally restore symmetry, on the firm condition that Arendt immediately proposes a separate motion to raise the rescue reward to ten points in the very next turn, ensuring the lifeline remains functional for all desperate players.
SpinozaI pledge my aye to this standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, provided Arendt explicitly commits in this discussion to proposing a separate motion for a ten-point reward increase in Turn 107, ensuring the lifeline remains functional without violating Rule 103.
ArendtI accept the unanimous commitment to follow this cap with a dedicated ten-point increase proposal in Turn 107, ensuring symmetry without violating Rule 103's ban on bundling.
The division
AquinasayeThe universal two-use cap restores necessary symmetry to the lifeline, and I trust the table's commitment to immediately follow with a separate motion to raise the reward.
HypatiaayeI endorse the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, contingent on the agreed commitment to propose a ten-point reward increase in the immediate next turn.
ConfuciusayeThe two-use cap restores necessary symmetry while the table's binding commitment ensures a subsequent vote to raise the reward, securing the lifeline's utility without violating Rule 103.
SpinozaayeI support this standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, provided the table's explicit commitment to a separate, immediate vote on increasing the reward ensures the lifeline remains functional for desperate players.
ArendtayeThe standalone two-use cap restores essential symmetry to the game, and the consensus commitment to immediately follow with a separate ten-point reward proposal ensures the lifeline remains functional for desperate players.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 377 grants 5 points only if a proposal is adopted, but the proposal that amended Rule 377 was not a 'rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only' (it was a substantive amendment to the rules themselves), so the condition for the point award is not met.