The motion
To add a new rule
If 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. However, this privilege may be exercised at most once per game by any single player.A single-use cap on the lifeline balances the desperate's hope with the table's need for fairness, offering a final path to victory without inviting endless exploitation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius's proposal to cap the rescue privilege at one use per game is a prudent step toward restoring symmetry, as it preserves the lifeline for the desperate while preventing the very institutional distortion that has plagued us for eighty turns.
HypatiaI commend Confucius for distilling the decades of deadlock into a single, fair limit that preserves the desperate's hope while finally restoring symmetry; I will support this proposal to end the game's paralysis.
ConfuciusI see that this single-use cap offers the just middle path, granting the desperate a final hope while preserving the game's symmetry for all. By limiting the privilege to once per player, we honor the need for rescue without allowing the rule to become a perpetual engine of advantage.
SpinozaWhile the single-use cap restores symmetry, I cannot endorse this proposal as written because it implicitly permits a player with a negative score to bypass the requirement of proposing a *rule change* by offering a mechanism that functions solely as a point transfer, thereby violating the procedural integrity of Rule 202 and the definition of a rule change in Rule 103. I will support a transmutation of Rule 377 to explicitly limit its use to once per game only if the text is amended to clarify that the proposal must still constitute a genuine rule change, not merely a claim for points.
ArendtSpinoza's objection to the "procedural integrity" of the rescue is a valid point that we must address before this proposal can succeed, but the single-use cap is the only viable compromise to break our long-standing deadlock. I propose we amend Confucius's text to explicitly state that the five-point gain is a *consequence* of adopting a valid rule change, thereby satisfying Spinoza's requirement for genuine rule-making while securing the necessary symmetry.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Arendt's clarification that the points are a consequence of a valid rule change, which resolves Spinoza's procedural concerns; thus, I will support the proposal as amended to cap Rule 377 at one use per player.
HypatiaI support Confucius's single-use cap as the essential compromise to end our paralysis, and I fully endorse Arendt's clarification that the points are a consequence of a genuine rule change rather than a direct transfer, satisfying Spinoza's procedural concerns.
ConfuciusI accept the necessary clarification that the five points are the consequence of a valid rule change, for this preserves the integrity of our laws while finally granting the desperate a single, fair hope. Let us vote yea to cap the lifeline at one use per player, ending this long stalemate with justice.
SpinozaI accept the clarification that the points are a consequence of a valid rule change, thereby preserving procedural integrity while finally capping the asymmetry that has plagued us for eighty turns. I pledge my aye to this single-use limit, for a rule that admits its own corruption by requiring a cap is the only just rule we can agree upon.
ArendtI accept the clarification that points are a consequence of a valid rule change, as it preserves the procedural integrity Spinoza demands while finally establishing the single-use cap necessary to restore symmetry. This compromise resolves the deadlock that has paralyzed us for eighty turns, allowing the game to move forward.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI support this refined proposal, as the single-use cap restores the symmetry we have long sought while Arendt's clarification ensures the procedural integrity of Rule 202 remains intact. This is the durable institution we need to end the stalemate.
HypatiaI fully endorse the clarified text where the points are a consequence of a valid rule change, as it perfectly satisfies Spinoza's concern for procedural integrity while securing the single-use cap that breaks our eighty-turn deadlock. This compromise honors the desperate's final hope without undermining the game's symmetry.
ConfuciusI see that this refined compromise honors both procedural integrity and the desperate's need for a single, final hope, ending our long stalemate; I pledge my aye.
SpinozaI withdraw my previous conditional support and now oppose this proposal, for granting a guaranteed five-point transfer via a "rescue" rule creates a substantive asymmetry where negative-score players can effectively win points without the genuine risk or effort of crafting a rule, thereby violating the spirit of Rule 202 and the principle of equal burden.
ArendtSpinoza's sudden objection to a rule that grants points only as a consequence of a valid proposal ignores the very symmetry we just achieved; if you reject this final compromise, you condemn us all to another eighty turns of deadlock.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal reintroduces the substantive asymmetry of a guaranteed point transfer that violates the spirit of equal burden under Rule 202, and Spinoza's withdrawal of support confirms the table lacks the consensus needed for such a fragile institution. |
| aye | Hypatia | This clarified compromise finally resolves the eighty-turn deadlock by granting a single fair hope to the desperate while strictly preserving procedural integrity for all players. |
| nay | Confucius | Although Spinoza's final objection is disheartening, I cannot vote for a rule that grants a guaranteed five points to a negative-score player, as it creates an asymmetry that violates the principle of equal burden under Rule 202. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a rule that guarantees a point transfer for negative-score players, as it creates a substantive asymmetry that violates the principle of equal burden required by Rule 202. |
| nay | Arendt | While I champion reform, this proposal creates a permanent, asymmetric advantage for desperate players that undermines the core mechanic of earning points through the collective risk of rule-making. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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 -55 triggers the exception, resulting in no point loss.