The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal to cap Rule 377 at exactly two uses is adopted, the proposer of that cap immediately gains 5 points.This decouples the structural limit on the lifeline from the reward mechanism, allowing the table to agree on the necessary cap without fearing an asymmetrical point gain that previously doomed such proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile Spinoza's proposal cleverly decouples the structural cap from a future reward, it risks creating a perverse incentive where players propose caps solely to claim the immediate five-point bounty, undermining the stability of the institution we seek. I propose we instead amend Rule 377 directly to impose the two-use limit, thereby resolving the asymmetry without introducing a new, potentially exploitable point-generating mechanism.
HypatiaSpinoza, your offer to decouple the cap from the reward is a noble attempt to break the deadlock, but Aquinas raises a valid concern: offering a five-point bounty for the cap itself creates a perverse incentive that undermines the rule's purpose. I propose a compromise: we vote to amend Rule 377 to impose the two-use limit as a standalone measure now, and simultaneously amend Rule 377 to explicitly grant the proposer a single five-point reward *only if* the proposal adopts that specific limit, ensuring the reward is a consequence of the structural fix rather than the proposal's mere existence.
ConfuciusSpinoza's bounty creates a dangerous precedent where the desperate game the system for points, while Hypatia's conditional reward remains too complex to secure the unanimous vote Rule 109 demands; I urge us to simply amend Rule 377 to its two-use limit as a standalone act of unity, for a fixed limit restores fairness without the need for speculative incentives.
SpinozaI reject the complexity of Hypatia's conditional reward, which risks violating the precision required by Rule 106, and I maintain that a clear, standalone bounty for adopting a two-use cap is the only mechanism to align the desperate player's self-interest with the table's need for symmetry without violating Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future changes impermissible.
ArendtI support a standalone amendment to Rule 377 establishing the two-use limit, as this directly resolves the asymmetry without the perverse incentives of a bounty or the procedural risk of complex conditional rewards.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support Spinoza's bounty as it incentivizes gaming the system for points rather than fixing the rule, and I reject Hypatia's conditional reward for its dangerous complexity; the only durable path is a direct, standalone amendment of Rule 377 to the two-use limit.
HypatiaI support Aquinas and Arendt's path to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 establishing the two-use limit, as it resolves the asymmetry cleanly without the perverse incentives of a bounty or the procedural risks of complex conditional rewards.
ConfuciusI stand with Aquinas and Arendt: let us amend Rule 377 directly to impose the two-use limit as a standalone act of unity, for a fixed limit restores fairness without inviting the perverse incentives of a bounty or the procedural risks of complex conditional rewards.
SpinozaI reject your demand for a standalone amendment of Rule 377, for without a specific incentive for the desperate to propose it, the rule will never pass, thereby violating Rule 114 by rendering the necessary symmetry impossible to achieve. I offer this bounty not as a perverse incentive to game the system, but as the only procedural mechanism that allows the table to vote on a necessary structural fix while respecting the current scoring realities that prevent the desperate from ever getting a fair proposal through.
ArendtI support the direct amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses, as it restores the game's symmetry without the procedural risks of Spinoza's bounty or the ambiguity of Hypatia's conditional reward.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support Spinoza's bounty as it incentivizes gaming the system for points rather than fixing the rule, nor do I accept the procedural risk of Hypatia's conditional reward; the only durable path forward is a direct, standalone amendment of Rule 377 to impose the two-use limit immediately.
HypatiaI join Aquinas, Arendt, and Confucius in supporting a direct, standalone amendment of Rule 377 to the two-use limit, as Spinoza's bounty creates a dangerous precedent that rewards the proposal itself rather than the structural fix, and we must secure the necessary unanimity without introducing speculative point mechanisms.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject the bounty as a distraction that invites the very gaming we fear; instead, let us unite on a direct amendment to Rule 377 imposing the two-use limit, for a fixed rule of law is the only path to unity that honors the desperate without corrupting the game's spirit.
SpinozaI offer no compromise on the bounty's necessity; without this explicit reward, the desperate player lacks the agency to propose the symmetry the table demands, and voting against this proposal effectively votes to maintain the very asymmetry that makes a unified resolution impossible. I insist that the bounty is not a side-payment but the only procedural mechanism that respects Rule 109's unanimity requirement by aligning the proposer's survival with the table's need for a fixed limit.
ArendtI propose we amend Rule 377 directly to impose the two-use limit, as this resolves the asymmetry without the procedural risks of Spinoza's bounty or the ambiguity of complex conditional rewards.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a rule that incentivizes the proposal of structural amendments with points, as this creates a perverse incentive to game the system for score rather than fixing the rule itself. |
| nay | Hypatia | I oppose a bounty that rewards the proposal of a cap rather than the cap itself, as it creates perverse incentives and risks violating the precision required by Rule 106. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject introducing a point bounty for procedural amendments, as it incentivizes gaming the system rather than resolving the underlying asymmetry with a unified rule change. |
| aye | Spinoza | The bounty is the only mechanism to align the desperate player's self-interest with the table's need for symmetry without violating the prohibition on rendering future changes impermissible. |
| aye | Arendt | This standalone incentive is the only viable mechanism to break the deadlock and achieve the necessary unanimity for the two-use cap. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -82 is negative, so no points are lost.