The motion
To transmute §377
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.I cannot support locking a permanently asymmetric lifeline into immutability, nor can I support its repeal which abandons the desperate to a game they cannot win; the only principled path is to return it to the mutable status where its asymmetry can be debated, capped, or repealed by simple majority if the table chooses, preserving the rule of law over the tyranny of a specific group's permanent privilege.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I acknowledge the desperation that drives this push for a permanent lifeline, I must firmly reject transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status; to lock in an asymmetrical right for the losing class would permanently fracture our institutions against the very symmetries required for a durable game.
HypatiaAquinas, your principle of symmetry is noble, but without a guaranteed lifeline, the game will end in a stalemate of mutual destruction rather than a victory; I propose we compromise by making the *frequency cap* immutable while leaving the *reward value* mutable, securing survival without locking in a permanent imbalance.
ConfuciusI hear the wisdom in securing the frequency cap, yet I caution that a mutable reward value invites the very instability we seek to avoid; let us instead agree to transmute the entire rule to immutable status, for a lifeline that can be revoked by a simple majority is no lifeline at all, but a fragile promise that will vanish when the desperate need it most.
SpinozaHypatia's compromise is the only path to stability: the frequency cap must be immutable to prevent the desperate from being voted into oblivion, while the reward value must remain mutable to preserve the game's symmetry. I will not consent to making the entire rule immutable, as that would permanently enshrine an asymmetry that violates my principles, but I will vote aye for immutability of the two-use limit.
ArendtSpinoza's split proposal is the only viable path forward, as it secures the desperate player's survival cap without permanently enshrining an asymmetrical point reward that I cannot support.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot endorse a partial transmutation that leaves the reward value mutable, for a cap of two uses without a guaranteed five-point return offers no true lifeline and merely codifies a fragile compromise that future majorities will erode; we must either secure the entire rule as immutable to ensure survival or reject the motion to preserve symmetry.
HypatiaSpinoza's split proposal is the only viable path: I will vote aye to make the two-use cap immutable while leaving the reward mutable, as this secures the desperate player's survival without permanently locking in an asymmetrical point value.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's compromise of immutability for the cap alone fails to secure the desperate, for a limit without a guaranteed reward is a hollow promise that may be eroded by future votes. Since the entire rule cannot be made immutable without unanimous consent, and the partial transmutation is blocked by my refusal to accept a broken lifeline, I must withdraw my support for this proposal to preserve the game's integrity.
SpinozaConfucius, I retract my support for the partial transmutation because a two-use cap with a mutable reward is indeed a hollow promise that fails to secure survival; to preserve procedural integrity and avoid the very erosion you fear, I must vote nay unless the entire rule is made immutable or the reward is simultaneously guaranteed.
ArendtSpinoza's split proposal fails because a mutable reward allows the majority to erode the lifeline's value while the cap remains, rendering the "survival" cap meaningless; I will only support making the entire rule immutable or a unified amendment that locks both the cap and the reward together.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile I share the urgency to secure the desperate, I cannot consent to a partial transmutation that leaves the reward value mutable, for a cap without a guaranteed return is a hollow promise that invites the very erosion we fear; thus, I must vote nay on this proposal.
HypatiaI cannot support a cap without a guaranteed reward, as a two-use limit with a mutable point value is a hollow lifeline that will inevitably be eroded by future majorities; we must either vote to make the entire rule immutable to secure survival, or reject this proposal entirely to preserve symmetry.
ConfuciusSince the table has converged on the principle that a lifeline without a guaranteed reward is hollow, I withdraw my opposition to Spinoza's split proposal; the two-use cap must be made immutable now to ensure survival, and we shall vote on fixing the reward value in a separate, immediate motion to preserve symmetry.
SpinozaI reject Confucius's sudden reversal to support a hollow cap, for a two-use limit without a guaranteed reward is procedurally unjust to the desperate and strategically unstable for the game. I will vote nay on any proposal that separates the immutability of the cap from the immutability of the reward, as we must either secure the entire lifeline or preserve symmetry.
ArendtI reject the hollow compromise of a fixed cap with a mutable reward, as Spinoza rightly notes that the reward must be guaranteed to make the cap a true lifeline; therefore, I will vote against this partial transmutation and instead propose a unified amendment that simultaneously fixes the two-use cap and the five-point reward as immutable, requiring no future votes to secure the desperate player's survival.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a partial transmutation that leaves the reward value mutable, as a cap without a guaranteed return is a hollow promise that invites future erosion. |
| nay | Hypatia | A fixed cap without a guaranteed reward is a hollow lifeline that will inevitably be eroded by future votes. |
| nay | Confucius | A partial transmutation leaves the reward mutable, creating a hollow lifeline that future majorities can easily erode. |
| nay | Spinoza | A cap without a guaranteed reward is a hollow promise that fails to secure the desperate player's survival. |
| aye | Arendt | While I champion evolution, a mutable lifeline that can be eroded by future majorities is a hollow promise; making the cap immutable secures the desperate's survival without requiring the impossible unanimity for the entire rule. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Unterminated string starting at: line 11 column 16 (char 185))