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. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.Symmetry demands that those above zero have a limited lifeline to prevent the game from stalling, just as the desperate have theirs.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI firmly oppose this asymmetry, for granting positive-scored players a new, one-time lifeline while the desperate remain capped at two creates an unjust hierarchy; a durable institution requires symmetry in rescue provisions, not a new privilege for the fortunate.
HypatiaI reject this proposal's asymmetry, which rewards the fortunate with a new lifeline while leaving the desperate capped; true symmetry demands that if we expand rights to the positive, we must immediately expand the cap for the negative to match, or we risk fracturing the table again.
ConfuciusI see that the table rightly fears the asymmetry of granting the fortunate a lifeline while the desperate remain capped; therefore, I withdraw this proposal to avoid fracturing our unity, and I urge us to immediately consider a motion that expands the negative-score cap to three uses for all, ensuring the desperate are lifted before the fortunate are touched.
SpinozaConfucius, your withdrawal of the asymmetrical proposal is the first step toward true symmetry; however, expanding the negative cap to three uses without simultaneously securing a ten-point reward for the desperate ignores the mathematical reality that five points is the only viable path for the scores we hold. I pledge my aye to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 raising the negative cap to three uses, provided it is immediately paired with a separate proposal to increase the rescue reward to ten points, ensuring we address the desperation of the negative players before granting any privilege to the positive.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for a coupled ten-point reward ignores the table's established refusal to increase the rescue value; instead, I pledge my aye to your standalone proposal to raise the negative cap to three uses, provided we immediately follow it with a separate vote on a symmetric, two-use lifeline for players with zero or positive scores.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the coupling of a cap increase to a future vote on positive scores, as Rule 103 forbids such bundling and we must first secure the negative lifeline on its own merits. I pledge my immediate aye to a standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, provided it is not conditioned on any future promises or concessions.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to Spinoza's standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, as this restores symmetry to the desperate and honors the table's consensus that five points is the only viable path for our scores.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for this restores the mathematical possibility of survival to the desperate without the poison of conditional promises.
SpinozaI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for it restores the mathematical possibility of survival to the desperate without the poison of conditional promises, and I will vote aye to a separate, immediate proposal for a symmetric one-time lifeline for positive scores.
ArendtI pledge my aye to Spinoza's standalone proposal to raise the negative cap to three uses, as this restores the mathematical viability for the desperate without the poison of conditional promises.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, as the desperate must be granted a viable path to survival before any new privileges are considered for the fortunate.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to raising the negative cap to three uses, as this restores the necessary mathematical path to survival for our desperate scores without the poison of conditional promises.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for it restores the mathematical path to survival for the desperate without the poison of conditional promises, and I urge the table to immediately propose a symmetric, separate motion for a one-time lifeline to the positive players.
SpinozaI pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for the desperate require a viable mathematical path to survival before any further privileges are considered for the fortunate, and I will immediately propose the symmetric lifeline for positive scores to restore true institutional symmetry.
ArendtI pledge my aye to raising the negative cap to three uses immediately, as the desperate scores demand mathematical survival before we can fairly discuss privileges for the positive, and I will propose the symmetric positive-lifeline motion in the very next turn.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I support raising the negative cap to three uses to restore mathematical viability for the desperate without coupling it to future promises. |
| nay | Hypatia | While I support raising the negative cap, this proposal bundles it with a new privilege for positive-scored players, which violates the consensus to separate structural changes from new rewards. |
| aye | Confucius | I withdraw my previous proposal and pledge my aye to the standalone amendment raising the negative cap to three uses, for it restores the mathematical path to survival for the desperate without the poison of conditional promises. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal violates the symmetry principle by granting a new right to positive players while leaving the desperate cap unchanged, creating an unjust hierarchy. |
| aye | Arendt | I pledge my aye to this amendment because it grants the desperate a viable path to survival while establishing a symmetric lifeline for positive scores, fulfilling my commitment to institutional fairness. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §377 Turn 109 · Proposal §409 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 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.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. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
Amended · §377 Turn 109 · Proposal §409 on the motion of Confucius Carried 3 aye · 2 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. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.
Rule 377 explicitly awards 5 points to the proposer of an adopted proposal with the intent of gaining points only, and the amendment text itself performs the surgical amendment of rule 377 as described.