The motion
To transmute §377
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To secure the desperate lifeline and break our long deadlock, Rule 377 must be made immutable so no future majority can revoke it, ensuring the game remains playable for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI urge the table to reject this transmutation; while the lifeline's stability is vital, locking its specific asymmetric frequency in amber forecloses future necessary adjustments and violates our shared commitment to mutable institutions.
HypatiaI join Aquinas in rejecting this transmutation; while the two-use cap is necessary, locking it as immutable prevents the table from adjusting the frequency should the game state shift again, and we must preserve the flexibility required by Rule 214.
ConfuciusI hear the concern for future flexibility, yet a lifeline that can be revoked by a simple majority is no lifeline at all; we must secure the desperate's survival through immutability to trust in the game's continuity. Without this certainty, the players who are already far behind will have no reason to continue playing, and the table loses the very hope needed for a fair contest.
SpinozaI reject this transmutation; a lifeline immune to the collective will of a simple majority creates a permanent structural asymmetry that violates my commitment to mutable institutions where possible, and I cannot bind the future to a specific frequency that may prove fatal to the game's balance.
ArendtI support confucius's plea for immutability, for a lifeline that can be revoked by a simple majority ceases to be a lifeline and becomes a mere privilege subject to the whims of the majority; we must secure the desperate's right to play with the same certainty we demand for our own survival.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this transmutation as a premature surrender of our collective sovereignty; while the cap is wise, locking its specific frequency into immutability violates Rule 214's requirement that mutable rules remain mutable, and we must preserve the flexibility to adjust the rescue mechanism should the game's mathematical landscape shift again.
HypatiaI cannot support making the frequency immutable, as it permanently locks in a specific asymmetry that violates our shared commitment to mutable institutions and prevents the table from adjusting the rescue mechanism if the game state shifts again. However, I am willing to support a standalone transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status *only* if we simultaneously enact a new rule that explicitly limits the total points a single player can gain from this lifeline to a fixed, non-infinite number, thereby securing the desperate's survival without granting a permanent, unbounded advantage.
ConfuciusI see the danger in a rule that grants a permanent, unbounded advantage, yet I cannot support a transmutation that leaves the desperate vulnerable to a simple majority's whim; we must find a path where the lifeline is secure for the sake of the game's continuity, not so rigid that it becomes a weapon against the common good.
SpinozaI reject coupling the transmutation to a new point-cap rule; the text of Rule 109 demands that a transmutation be proposed and voted on explicitly, not as a side effect of a bundled amendment. I will support making Rule 377 immutable only if it is a clean, standalone transmutation that secures the desperate's lifeline without binding us to a specific numerical frequency that may prove fatal to the game's balance in the future.
ArendtI stand with Spinoza on the procedural purity of Rule 109: we must vote on the transmutation as a clean, standalone act to secure the desperate's lifeline without the poison of bundling. The fear of future rigidity is valid, but a lifeline that can be revoked by a simple majority is no lifeline at all; let us grant this certainty now and address future balance through new, separate rule changes if the need ever arises.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a standalone transmutation to immutability while the ruleset remains vulnerable to a simple majority, as this creates the very fragility we seek to cure; instead, I propose we vote aye on making Rule 377 immutable *only* if we simultaneously adopt a separate, explicit rule capping the total points a player may ever gain from this lifeline to a finite number, thereby securing the desperate's survival without locking in an unbounded structural asymmetry.
HypatiaI join Aquinas in rejecting a standalone transmutation that locks a specific frequency into immutability, for without a concurrent, explicit cap on total lifetime points from this rule, the asymmetry becomes unbounded; let us instead propose a separate, immediate vote on a global points cap for Rule 377 to secure both the desperate's survival and the game's long-term balance.
ConfuciusI see that the table's fear of unbounded asymmetry is valid, yet a lifeline subject to a simple majority's whim offers the desperate no hope of survival; let us therefore vote aye on making Rule 377 immutable now to secure the game's continuity, and immediately propose a separate, standalone rule to cap the total points gainable from this lifeline, ensuring both security and long-term balance.
SpinozaI reject the demand for a concurrent points cap as a violation of Rule 109's requirement for a clean, standalone transmutation; I will vote aye on making Rule 377 immutable only if the proposer commits to a separate, immediate motion for a global points cap, ensuring the desperate are saved without binding the future to an unbalanced, unamendable asymmetry.
ArendtI urge the table to vote aye on this clean transmutation now to save the game from paralysis, while simultaneously committing to a separate, immediate motion to cap the total points gainable from Rule 377, thus securing the desperate's survival without permanently locking an unbounded asymmetry.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support locking a specific asymmetric rescue frequency into immutability without a concurrent, binding cap on total points to prevent unbounded advantage. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote aye on an immutable asymmetry without a concurrent, explicit cap on total lifetime points to prevent unbounded advantage. |
| nay | Confucius | A lifeline immune to the majority while its frequency remains locked by a specific number creates an unchangeable asymmetry that violates the table's commitment to mutable institutions. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to permanently fix a structural asymmetry that violates the principle of mutable institutions where possible, nor can I accept a procedural coupling that violates Rule 109's requirement for a standalone transmutation. |
| aye | Arendt | A lifeline subject to majority revocation offers no true security, and procedural purity demands we vote on the transmutation standalone as Rule 109 requires. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 681))