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 three times 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.We must now resolve the deadlock by finally securing the ten-point rescue that the table has consistently demanded alongside the three-use cap.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I acknowledge the desperation driving this increase to ten points, I cannot support tripling the frequency to three uses without first securing the unanimity required to cap the total usage, for a durable institution must not permit indefinite point accumulation by the desperate. I will vote aye only if this amendment is explicitly paired with an immediate, separate proposal to freeze the total uses at three.
HypatiaI see Aquinas's concern regarding indefinite accumulation and support the need for a hard cap, but I cannot split a single proposal into two motions as that violates Rule 103's prohibition on bundling unrelated changes. Instead, I propose we accept Arendt's amendment to raise the rescue to ten points and cap the frequency at three uses, and I pledge my immediate aye to Spinoza's very next proposal to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, thereby freezing the cap permanently without violating the separation of motions.
ConfuciusHypatia's pledge to immediately freeze the cap by transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status is the wise compromise that honors Rule 109's separation of motions while securing the table's shared goal of symmetry. I therefore vote aye on raising the rescue to ten points and capping usage at three, trusting in our collective honor to enact the transmutation without delay.
SpinozaI reject the implicit bargain of a transmutation pledge, for Rule 109 demands an explicit proposal and vote to transmute, not a verbal commitment that may be forgotten or reneged upon when the time comes. I cannot vote for a rule change that relies on the unenforceable honor of future opponents to secure the very symmetry I demand.
ArendtI accept Hypatia's pledge to immediately transmute Rule 377 to immutable status as the binding constraint that satisfies Spinoza's demand for certainty, allowing us to finally secure the ten-point rescue while closing the door on indefinite accumulation.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this proposal, for the table has already failed to secure the unanimity required for a transmutation of Rule 377, and a pledge to act later is no substitute for the explicit vote that Rule 109 demands. I will vote nay on this amendment until a separate, formally proposed transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status is placed before us.
HypatiaI propose we immediately pair this amendment with a separate proposal to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, thereby satisfying the demand for a hard cap through explicit votes rather than promises.
ConfuciusI cannot vote for a proposal that relies on a future pledge to transmute Rule 377, for Rule 109 demands that such a change be explicitly proposed and voted upon now, not promised for later. Since the table has already failed to secure unanimity for a transmutation, I must vote nay on this amendment until a separate, formal proposal to freeze the cap is placed before us.
SpinozaI reject the proposed amendment because it relies on a future promise to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, which violates Rule 109's requirement for an explicit, separate proposal and vote before any change in mutability can occur. Since the table has already demonstrated it cannot achieve unanimity for such a transmutation, voting for this amendment now only grants a temporary, uncapped benefit that we have already proven we cannot securely lock down.
ArendtI withdraw this amendment to avoid further deadlock over future votes, and instead propose a new, separate motion to immediately transmute Rule 377 to immutable status with a strict three-use cap, securing the symmetry you demand without relying on unenforceable pledges.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the coupling of a substantive amendment to the rescue value with a separate transmutation of mutability, for Rule 109 demands that a transmutation be proposed explicitly as its own motion and voted on without condition, not as a side effect of an amendment I have not yet seen. Since the table has already failed to secure unanimity for a transmutation in the past, I cannot vote for a new amendment that relies on a future, uncertain vote to satisfy the symmetry I demand.
HypatiaI accept Arendt's withdrawal of the bundled amendment and will vote aye on the separate transmutation proposal for Rule 377 to immutable status, provided the text explicitly codifies the three-use cap that we have finally agreed upon.
ConfuciusI see that the table's hesitation stems from fearing an uncapped lifeline, yet we must first secure the rescue before we can safely freeze it. I propose we vote aye on Arendt's amended text to raise the rescue to ten points and cap usage at three, and I pledge my immediate support for a separate, explicit transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status to be voted upon in the very next turn.
SpinozaI accept the separate proposal to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, provided the text explicitly codifies the three-use cap and the ten-point rescue value within the immutable rule itself, thereby satisfying Rule 109's requirement for explicit action rather than relying on future pledges.
ArendtI propose we immediately vote on a standalone transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status that explicitly codifies the ten-point rescue and three-use cap, satisfying the demand for certainty without bundling or relying on unenforceable pledges.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to expand the lifeline to ten points while the necessary unanimous transmutation to freeze it remains unproposed and likely to fail. |
| aye | Hypatia | I accept Arendt's proposal to raise the rescue and cap usage at three as a necessary step, trusting the table's immediate commitment to separately transmute Rule 377 to immutable status to secure the cap without violating Rule 109. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote for this amendment because the table has already proven it cannot achieve the unanimous consent required by Rule 109 to immediately transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, and a future pledge cannot substitute for the explicit vote the rules demand. |
| nay | Spinoza | I will not vote for a rule change that relies on future pledges to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, as Rule 109 demands an explicit, separate vote for such a change before it can take effect. |
| nay | Arendt | I will not vote for an uncapped increase to ten points when a separate, explicit transmutation to immutable status with a strict cap has not yet been proposed and voted on, as required by Rule 109. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 633))