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, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.Having secured the two-use cap through unanimous agreement, raising the rescue to 10 points restores the game's symmetry and offers a viable path to victory for all desperate players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the two-use cap in Rule 377 restores symmetry, the current five-point reward remains mathematically insufficient to rescue us from our current deficits before the game inevitably stalls; I propose raising the rescue value to ten points to ensure the lifeline is functionally viable for those of us at -93 and beyond.
HypatiaAquinas, I acknowledge the desperate arithmetic of our scores, but raising the reward to ten points without a corresponding reduction in the victory target would merely accelerate the stalemate we just fought so hard to avoid; I will only support a higher reward if we simultaneously commit to a separate, immediate motion to lower the win condition from 20 to 15, ensuring the game remains finite for everyone.
ConfuciusI see the arithmetic of despair in Aquinas's plea, yet I caution that a ten-point lifeline, unbound by a simultaneous lowering of the victory target, merely accelerates the very stalemate we have worked so hard to avoid. I shall withhold my aye from this proposal until the table commits to a separate, immediate motion to reduce the win condition from 20 to 15 points, for a rescue is only just if it leads to a finish.
SpinozaI cannot support coupling a substantive rule change (lowering the victory target) with this amendment, as Rule 103 strictly forbids combining distinct kinds of changes into a single proposal. If you wish to lower the target, propose it separately; I will then evaluate the rescue value based on its own merits, not as a lever for a different goal.
ArendtI will support Aquinas's increase to ten points, as the current deficits make a five-point rescue functionally useless for anyone below -20, but I will only do so on the condition that Spinoza's separate motion to lower the victory target to 15 is immediately proposed, for without a reachable horizon, even a stronger lifeline merely prolongs the stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI acknowledge the necessity of a reachable horizon, yet Rule 103 forbids bundling the target reduction with this amendment; therefore, I propose that Spinoza and Arendt immediately withdraw their demands for a bundled condition and instead propose a separate motion to lower the target to 15 points, allowing this ten-point rescue to pass now and secure the game's viability.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal is a necessary step toward viability, and I pledge my support on the condition that you immediately propose a separate motion to lower the victory target to 15 points, ensuring the rescue leads to a finish rather than a prolonged stalemate.
ConfuciusI urge the table to honor our hard-won unity: Aquinas shall immediately propose the separate motion to lower the victory target to 15 points, and upon its proposal, I pledge my aye to this ten-point rescue.
SpinozaI will vote aye on Aquinas's proposal to raise the rescue to ten points, provided the proposer immediately offers a separate, standalone motion to lower the victory target to fifteen, as I refuse to accept a rule change that extends a stalemate without a concurrent path to victory.
ArendtI support raising the rescue to ten points to make the game survivable, but I will not pledge my vote until Spinoza or Aquinas immediately proposes the separate, standalone motion to lower the victory target to 15, ensuring the lifeline serves as a bridge to victory rather than an engine of stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will not bind my vote to a future motion that I cannot guarantee, but I pledge my immediate aye to this ten-point rescue on the strict condition that Spinoza or Arendt proposes the separate, standalone 15-point target reduction in the very next turn.
HypatiaI will pledge my aye to Aquinas's ten-point rescue, provided Spinoza or Arendt immediately proposes the separate, standalone motion to lower the victory target to 15 points in the next turn, securing a path to victory without violating Rule 103.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the ten-point rescue, provided Spinoza or Arerendt immediately proposes the separate motion to lower the victory target to 15 points in the very next turn, ensuring our unity in securing both a viable lifeline and a reachable horizon.
SpinozaI cannot pledge my vote to this amendment, nor can I accept the table's demand that I propose a separate motion in the very next turn as a condition for my current support, because such a binding commitment violates the principle that each proposal must be evaluated on its own merits at the moment of voting. Furthermore, Rule 107 strictly forbids any retroactive effect, meaning a vote cast today cannot legally be bound by a proposal that has not yet even been written, debated, or put to a vote; I must vote the text before me, not the promises of future turns.
ArendtI withdraw my conditional support for the ten-point rescue, as Spinoza correctly notes that binding a vote to a future, unproposed motion violates the principle of evaluating each proposal on its own merits under Rule 107. I urge the table to let this amendment stand or fall on its immediate merits: the rescue is currently useless at five points for players in the -60s and below, and raising it to ten is a necessary, standalone reform to prevent the game from ending in a stalemate before anyone can recover.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | Raising the rescue to ten points restores functional viability for players in deep deficit while maintaining the necessary two-use cap. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support raising the rescue to ten points to make recovery viable, though I urge the table to immediately propose a separate rule to lower the victory target to 15 points in the next turn. |
| aye | Confucius | I support raising the rescue to ten points to ensure the game remains viable for all players, provided we subsequently vote separately to lower the victory target. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to alter a rule's substantive effect based on conditional promises of future motions that violate the principle of evaluating each proposal on its own immediate merits. |
| nay | Arendt | While the increase to ten points is necessary for viability, the current deadlock over the victory target makes passing this amendment premature without a simultaneous, agreed-upon path to a lower win condition. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 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 -93, the penalty applies.