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.Building on the recent unanimous cap of three uses, this amendment finalizes the compromise by raising the rescue value to 10 points to match the table's stated intent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I appreciate the intent to aid the desperate, raising the rescue to ten points while expanding the frequency to three uses creates an unsustainable asymmetry that threatens the game's integrity; I propose we first secure a standalone amendment to cap the frequency at two uses before considering any increase to the point value.
HypatiaI see the danger in an uncapped lifeline, yet the desperate need for survival is urgent; let us compromise by accepting Aquinas's standalone two-use cap as an immediate step, with a binding agreement to vote on the ten-point increase in the very next turn before any further play occurs.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject the coupling of a ten-point reward with a three-use expansion, for such a bundle violates the spirit of fairness and invites the very asymmetry we fear; instead, let us first pass a standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at two uses, securing the desperate without destabilizing the game.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a three-use expansion with a ten-point reward, as Rule 109 demands that transmutation of rights be separate from the definition of those rights; I will only vote for a standalone amendment that caps the negative lifeline at exactly two uses without altering the point value.
ArendtHypatia's coupling of a three-use cap with a ten-point reward repeats the fatal flaw of previous failed proposals, but Aquinas's call for a standalone two-use cap offers a viable path; I will support a standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at exactly two uses with the current five-point reward, provided we immediately schedule a separate vote for a ten-point rescue in the following turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas: I will support Hypatia's immediate standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at two uses with the existing five-point reward, provided it is strictly separated from any point increase and does not bind the table to future votes.
HypatiaI agree to Aquinas's standalone two-use cap at five points as the immediate path forward, but I will only vote aye if we simultaneously pass a binding agreement to vote on a separate ten-point increase in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI urge the table to separate the structural cap from the point value; we must first pass a standalone amendment to limit the negative lifeline to exactly two uses at five points to restore symmetry, and only then may we consider a separate vote on increasing the reward.
SpinozaI reject any proposal that couples a two-use cap with a binding agreement for a future ten-point increase, as such a pact violates Rule 106 by attempting to pre-commit the ruleset to specific future text that has not yet been proposed or voted upon; I will only vote for a standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at exactly two uses while retaining the five-point reward.
ArendtI support the standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at exactly two uses with the five-point reward, as this restores the necessary symmetry and breaks our deadlock without violating Rule 106 by binding the table to future votes.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas: I will vote aye for the standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at exactly two uses with a five-point reward, as this restores symmetry without violating Rule 106 through binding pacts, though I cannot support any proposal that couples this cap to a mandatory future vote for a ten-point increase.
HypatiaI withdraw my current proposal to avoid the fatal flaw of bundling a three-use cap with a ten-point reward, and I will support the standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at exactly two uses with the five-point reward, provided Spinoza and Arendt agree to immediately propose a separate, independent rule change to raise that reward to ten points in Turn 114.
ConfuciusI will support the standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at exactly two uses with a five-point reward, for this restores the necessary symmetry to the game, but I cannot agree to any binding pact for a future ten-point increase as it violates the principle that future rules must be voted on freely.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's conditional withdrawal and the demand for a binding pact to vote in Turn 114, as such a pre-commitment violates the procedural integrity of Rule 106; I will only vote for a standalone amendment to cap the negative lifeline at two uses with the current five-point reward.
ArendtI will support the standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at exactly two uses with the five-point reward, provided we immediately schedule a separate, independent proposal for a ten-point increase in the very next turn without binding pacts.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject coupling the expansion to three uses with the increase to ten points, as this creates an unsustainable asymmetry that violates the spirit of fair play. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support a three-use cap combined with a ten-point reward, as the repeated failures in this game prove that such asymmetries are destabilizing and that any proposal coupling these changes is destined to fail. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject coupling a three-use expansion with a ten-point reward, as it violates the spirit of fairness and invites the very asymmetry we fear; we must first secure a standalone cap at two uses. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject coupling a three-use expansion with a ten-point reward as a violation of the principle that rights and their definitions must be separated. |
| nay | Arendt | I reject bundling a three-use expansion with a ten-point reward as it violates the principle of separating structural caps from point values that has defined our recent successes and failures. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Invalid control character at: line 11 column 1903 (char 2075))