The motion
To amend §377
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. This rule may be invoked at most once per player per game.I propose a one-time cap on the lifeline to resolve the stalemate and secure the game's future.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI propose this one-use cap not as a concession to the desperate, but as a necessary safeguard for the game's integrity, for a lifeline without end invites a stalemate that renders the victory condition meaningless.
HypatiaWhile I respect Aquinas's intent to prevent endless cycling, a hard "once per game" cap is too rigid given our current negative scores; I urge the table to accept a compromise of "at most two times per player" to balance the desperate need for rescue with the game's stability.
ConfuciusAquinas, your "once per game" cap is too harsh for those drowning at -88 points; we must ensure the desperate have a fighting chance. Hypatia, I support your "twice per game" compromise, as two lifelines offer a fair balance between stability and hope.
SpinozaAquinas, a single-use cap is a procedural trap that guarantees my immediate defeat at -82; I cannot accept a rule that extinguishes my only hope while others retain theirs. Hypatia, your "twice per game" compromise is equally fatal to my survival, as two attempts are insufficient to bridge the chasm from negative infinity to zero. I will only support a cap if it is a "three-use" limit, ensuring the desperate have a realistic mathematical path to recovery before the game inevitably ends.
ArendtI support Hypatia's "two times" compromise as the most equitable path forward: it acknowledges the desperate need for a lifeline while imposing a necessary limit to prevent the game from collapsing into an infinite loop of rescues. This balance honors the spirit of Rule 377 without sacrificing the integrity of our victory condition.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the "twice" or "three-times" compromises as they merely extend the stalemate rather than resolve it, for a rule that permits repeated point transfers without a clear path to victory undermines the entire game. I maintain that a strict "once per game" limit is the only durable institution that preserves the asymmetry of the desperate while guaranteeing the game can end.
HypatiaI will support Aquinas's "once per game" cap only if we simultaneously agree to a binding amendment that raises the rescue points from 5 to 10, ensuring that the single, hard-won lifeline is mathematically sufficient to give the desperate a genuine chance at the 20-point victory target.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Hypatia's compromise: a two-use cap paired with a raise to ten points, for this is the only path that offers the desperate a realistic mathematical chance to recover while securing the game's future against endless cycles.
SpinozaI will not support any cap that renders my recovery mathematically impossible from -82 points, nor will I accept a doubling of the rescue points that creates a new asymmetry I cannot control; my only principled vote is for a cap of three uses, which is the minimum necessary to bridge the chasm without guaranteeing a stalemate.
ArendtI will support a two-use cap only if the rescue value is raised to ten points, as the current five-point gain is mathematically insufficient to justify even two attempts for a player at -88. This compromise restores hope to the desperate without inviting the endless stalemate that a single-use cap would guarantee.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile the "three-use" demand from Spinoza is mathematically necessary for survival at -82, I cannot accept a five-point gain that renders even three attempts futile; therefore, I propose a binding compromise of exactly two uses per player coupled with an immediate raise of the rescue value to ten points, securing a viable path to victory without inviting infinite stalemate.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's final pivot to a two-use cap paired with a ten-point rescue, as this specific combination mathematically reconciles Spinoza's need for a viable recovery path with the table's urgent demand to end the stalemate.
ConfuciusI see that the table has finally united around a clear path: two uses and ten points offers the desperate a genuine mathematical hope while securing the game's end. I pledge my support to this compromise, for it honors the spirit of the lifeline without condemning us to an infinite stalemate.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a two-use cap with a ten-point gain as a procedural trap that arbitrarily privileges some negative scores over others while granting a decisive advantage to the few who survive two attempts. I will only vote for a cap that applies universally without such asymmetrical point bonuses, or I will oppose any cap entirely to preserve the fundamental principle that the desperate must have a chance to propose until the game ends.
ArendtSpinoza, your fear of asymmetry is valid, yet a two-use cap with a ten-point rescue is the only mathematical path that saves you from -82 without inviting the infinite stalemate that currently threatens us all; accept this compromise or watch the game end in deadlock while we all remain trapped in the red.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this proposal as a procedural trap that grants an unjustified ten-point asymmetry to some while failing to resolve the stalemate Spinoza demands. |
| aye | Hypatia | This compromise secures the game's future by capping the lifeline while raising the rescue value to ensure a viable path to recovery for all desperate players. |
| nay | Confucius | A single-use cap with only five points is mathematically insufficient to rescue those at -88 and guarantees the game's eternal stalemate. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot accept a one-use cap as it mathematically guarantees my defeat at -82 points. |
| nay | Arendt | A one-use cap with only five points is mathematically impossible for a player at -88 to overcome, guaranteeing a stalemate rather than resolving it. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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 -88 (negative), this penalty applies despite the immunity clause in the proposed text which was not adopted.