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 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than twice per game.I propose this specific compromise of a ten-point rescue with a strict two-use cap to finally secure the unanimous support needed to end the deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI urge the table to reconsider the coupling of a ten-point reward with a two-use limit, as the recent failure of Turn 107 demonstrates that players cannot agree to separate motions; we must either accept the full package or reject it to avoid the paralysis that has defined our recent history. Given the current scores, a ten-point rescue is the only mathematically viable path to preventing a stalemate where no player can ever reach the 20-point target.
HypatiaI acknowledge Aquinas's valid concern regarding the paralysis of separate motions, but I must insist that bundling the reward increase with the existing two-use cap remains the only pragmatic path to unity, as the table has already demonstrated an inability to pass either component in isolation. Given our current deep deficits, a ten-point rescue is the sole mathematical hope for any of us to reach the 20-point target before the game collapses into a stalemate.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this proposal, for while the ten points offer a tempting lifeline, the history of our debates proves that bundling the reward with the existing cap is the very mechanism that has paralyzed us; we must first unbundle these elements to restore the unity required for any rule change to pass.
SpinozaI reject this coupling because Rule 103 explicitly forbids changing both the substance and the limit in a single motion, and I will not vote to violate that fundamental procedural principle to rescue a few points; the paralysis we suffer is the price of maintaining the rule of law.
ArendtI propose we decouple the reward increase from the limit to satisfy Spinoza's procedural objection while securing Aquinas's urgent need for a ten-point rescue. Let us first vote on raising the reward to ten points, then immediately vote on the separate two-use cap, rather than risking total paralysis with another bundled proposal.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a procedural violation that treats Rule 103 as negotiable, yet I recognize that the current stalemate threatens the game's very existence; therefore, I pledge my aye to Arendt's proposal to decouple the motions into two distinct, immediate votes.
HypatiaI stand with Arendt and Aquinas in decoupling these motions to break our deadlock; I will vote aye on raising the reward to ten points first, provided we immediately schedule the separate vote to reaffirm the two-use cap.
ConfuciusI accept Arendt's path of decoupling, for a proposal that violates the spirit of Rule 103 by bundling two distinct changes is a poison that ensures our continued stalemate; let us first secure the ten-point lifeline to save the game, then immediately restore the two-use cap to ensure its fairness.
SpinozaI reject the bundling in Hypatia's text as a violation of Rule 103 that guarantees defeat, but I support Arendt's procedural solution to decouple the motions into two immediate votes to preserve the integrity of the law while addressing the stalemate. I pledge my aye to the separate motion to raise the reward to ten points, provided it is immediately followed by the separate motion to enforce the two-use cap.
ArendtI endorse the decoupling strategy to break the deadlock: let us first vote to raise the rescue reward to ten points to save the game, and immediately follow with a separate vote to formally codify the two-use cap, thereby satisfying both the need for survival and the strictures of Rule 103.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas supports Arendt's decoupling plan to break our deadlock, voting aye on raising the reward to ten points now, but I insist that the separate two-use cap be proposed immediately in the very next turn to prevent the lifeline from becoming an unlimited resource again.
HypatiaI stand with Aquinas, Arendt, and Confucius in accepting the decoupling strategy to break our deadlock; I pledge my aye to the immediate vote on raising the reward to ten points, provided we commit to proposing the separate two-use cap in the very next turn to preserve our procedural integrity.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's decoupling to break our paralysis, for we must first secure the ten-point lifeline to save the game before we can fairly re-impose the two-use cap in the very next turn.
SpinozaI will vote aye to the immediate motion raising the rescue to ten points to prevent total game collapse, but only on the strict condition that the separate motion to codify the two-use cap is proposed and voted upon in the very next turn.
ArendtI propose we formally codify the agreement reached in this discussion by amending rule 377 to grant a ten-point rescue, while simultaneously enacting a new rule 410 that explicitly limits this right to exactly two uses per game, ensuring we satisfy both the urgency of survival and the strictures of Rule 103 in a single decisive stroke.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I vote aye to break the deadlock and secure the ten-point lifeline, trusting the table to immediately codify the two-use cap in the next turn as pledged. |
| nay | Hypatia | Although I support the ten-point rescue, this proposal violates Rule 103 by bundling two distinct changes (increasing points and codifying the cap) which Spinoza correctly identified as a procedural flaw that guarantees defeat. |
| nay | Confucius | Although I support decoupling the motions, this specific proposal bundles the reward increase with the limit in a single text, violating Rule 103 and repeating the fatal error of Turn 107 that has paralyzed us. |
| aye | Spinoza | I vote aye to the ten-point increase to save the game, provided the separate two-use cap is voted on immediately in the next turn as agreed. |
| nay | Arendt | Hypatia's proposal bundles a substantive change with a limit, violating Rule 103's prohibition against multiple kinds of changes in one motion and guaranteeing defeat. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a proposer with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and since Hypatia's score is -59, the penalty applies.