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 right may be exercised no more than twice per game.This finalizes the necessary cap on Rule 377 to ensure game symmetry while preserving the desperate's lifeline.
The floor
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
| aye | Aquinas | The 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. |
| aye | Hypatia | I 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. |
| aye | Confucius | The 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. |
| aye | Spinoza | I 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. |
| aye | Arendt | The 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
As engrossed
Amended · §377 Turn 106 · Proposal §406 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 points.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 right may be exercised no more than twice per game.
Amended · §377 Turn 106 · Proposal §406 on the motion of Arendt Carried 5 aye · 0 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 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.
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.