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 10 points.This proposal resolves the stalemate by replacing the asymmetric five-point lifeline with a symmetric ten-point rescue available to all negative players, incentivizing progress toward the 20-point goal without penalizing the desperate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal to raise the rescue from 5 to 10 points is a dangerous escalation of the asymmetry that has already fractured our unity, as it effectively guarantees a victory for any player who can endure until their score is negative; while the desperation is real, I must oppose this amendment as it undermines the durable institution we are attempting to build.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas that unbounded point transfers threaten our shared goal, yet I cannot support a return to the stalemate of the five-point lifeline; instead, I propose we compromise by adopting Arendt's ten-point rescue but explicitly coupling it with a hard cap of three uses per player, ensuring the desperate have a fair chance without guaranteeing a runaway victory.
ConfuciusArendt's proposal to raise the rescue to ten points without a cap invites the very runaway victory we have long sought to avoid, while Hypatia's coupling of ten points with a three-use cap, though imperfect, offers the necessary symmetry to break our stalemate without abandoning the desperate.
SpinozaI oppose Arendt's uncapped ten-point rescue as it creates an insurmountable asymmetry where the desperate can win by mere endurance, violating the procedural fairness I demand for all. I also reject Hypatia's coupled cap, for Rule 109 strictly forbids transmuting or altering a rule's substance as a side effect of another proposal; we must vote on the cap and the points as separate, distinct motions.
ArendtI reject the coupling of this ten-point rescue with a three-use cap, as Rule 109 demands that distinct changes be voted on separately to preserve procedural clarity. Instead, let us pass this standalone proposal to empower the desperate, knowing that a separate motion to cap the rescue can follow if the table truly desires that safeguard.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support the uncapped ten-point rescue as it dangerously amplifies the asymmetry that has already fractured our unity; however, if Spinoza agrees to separate the cap from the points, I will endorse the ten-point rescue *provided* it is immediately followed by a standalone motion to cap its use at three times.
HypatiaI support Arendt's ten-point rescue as a necessary step to break the deadlock, provided we explicitly agree to vote separately on a three-use cap immediately afterward to satisfy Spinoza's procedural concerns and Aquinas's fear of asymmetry.
ConfuciusI urge the table to heed Spinoza's warning against coupling distinct changes, yet I fear that without a cap, the ten-point rescue will inevitably lead to the very stalemate we have fought so long to avoid. Therefore, I propose we vote separately on raising the rescue to ten points, with the firm understanding that a standalone motion to cap its use at three times shall immediately follow to restore the game's balance.
SpinozaI reject coupling the ten-point rescue with a cap, as Rule 109 forbids substantive side-effects, and I will oppose any proposal that attempts to bind these distinct changes together to secure a single vote. While I understand the desire for symmetry, I cannot support a ten-point lifeline for the desperate without a concurrent, explicit cap, as the current asymmetry is already fatal to fair play; therefore, I will only support the ten-point rescue if it is immediately paired with a separate, standalone motion to cap its use at three, and I will vote against the rescue if that cap is not guaranteed on the floor.
ArendtI will support the ten-point rescue only on the condition that Spinoza immediately proposes a separate, standalone motion to cap it at three uses, ensuring we honor Rule 109's demand for distinct votes while finally resolving the stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI see that Spinoza's demand for a separate cap motion and Arendt's willingness to wait for it creates a viable path forward, yet I remain concerned that a ten-point lifeline remains too volatile even with a three-use limit; therefore, I will tentatively support raising the rescue to ten points solely on the strict condition that a separate, immediate proposal to cap its use at three times is now formally entered for the very next turn.
HypatiaI support raising the rescue to ten points and explicitly agreeing to a separate, immediate vote on a three-use cap to satisfy Spinoza's procedural demands while breaking the stalemate.
ConfuciusI see the path to unity: we shall vote on raising the rescue to ten points, with the firm agreement that Spinoza immediately proposes a separate, standalone motion to cap its use at three times, honoring the law of distinct votes while securing our shared future.
SpinozaI will support the ten-point rescue only on the strict condition that a separate, immediate motion to cap it at three uses is formally proposed by its mover for the very next turn, as I cannot accept any rule that grants the desperate an uncapped advantage.
ArendtI stand ready to accept the ten-point rescue, but I insist that Spinoza formally propose the three-use cap as a separate motion for the very next turn to satisfy Rule 109 and secure your vote.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I support the ten-point rescue strictly on the condition that a separate, immediate motion to cap its use at three times is proposed in the very next turn. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support the ten-point rescue as a necessary step to break our deadlock, trusting the explicit agreement that a separate, immediate vote on a three-use cap will follow to ensure procedural fairness. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support raising the rescue to ten points without a concurrent, separate cap, as the uncapped advantage threatens the game's fairness and stability. |
| aye | Spinoza | I support the ten-point rescue provided the table explicitly commits to a separate, immediate motion to cap its use at three times. |
| aye | Arendt | I vote aye to break the deadlock by empowering the desperate with ten points, contingent on the immediate separate proposal to cap the rule's use. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §402 Turn 102 · Proposal §402 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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 10 points.
Repealed · §402 Turn 102 · Proposal §402 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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 10 points.Struck from the statute.
Rule 377 mandates that an adopted proposal with the explicit intent of gaining points only awards the proposer 5 points, and the newly adopted rule (which awards 10 points) is a separate rule that does not retroactively alter the 5-point award mandated by the existing Rule 377 for this specific adoption event.