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 two 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 have finally secured the two-use cap for negative players; now we must explicitly codify the one-use limit for non-negative players to complete the symmetrical rescue framework the table has debated for fifty turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I appreciate the symmetry of the two-use cap for negative players, I must insist that the one-use limit for players at zero or higher be raised to two as well, for a game where the desperate have double the lifelines of the stable creates a fragile and unjust hierarchy.
HypatiaAquinas, your concern for symmetry is noble, but I must point out that granting the desperate two uses while the stable get one is the precise mechanism that prevents the game from ending prematurely; however, to honor your principle of balance, I am willing to propose an immediate follow-up motion to grant the zero-or-higher players a third use, or to raise their limit to two if you can secure Spinoza and Arendt's support for that specific extension.
ConfuciusI observe that Hypatia's offer to grant the stable players a third use is a clever path to symmetry, yet I fear it invites the very chaos we have fought to contain; instead, let us propose a simple amendment granting the stable players a second use immediately, for a game of two uses for all restores the true harmony of the table without the risk of infinite lifelines.
SpinozaI cannot support raising the limit for the stable players to two or three uses while the victory target remains twenty; such symmetry would merely extend the game's inevitable stalemate by granting those already safe more opportunities to block the desperate without ever reaching the win condition. I will vote aye only on a proposal that caps all uses at exactly one, as this is the only configuration where the desperate have a fighting chance to reach twenty while the stable players are forced to cooperate rather than stall.
ArendtSpinoza's proposal to cap everyone at one use is a death sentence for the desperate while the stable players simply stall for time; to restore the symmetry you seek, Aquinas, I will support your demand for a second use for the stable players immediately, provided we all agree to lower the victory target to fifteen points in the next round.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the coupling of a symmetric two-use cap with a victory target reduction, as the latter invites the very stalemate we have fought to avoid; instead, I support granting the stable players a second use only if Spinoza and Arendt explicitly withdraw their demands for a target reduction and commit to the current twenty-point threshold.
HypatiaI propose we immediately adopt Arendt's two-use cap for all players to restore symmetry, coupled with a binding pledge from Spinoza and Arendt to support a future, separate motion lowering the victory target to fifteen points.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept the two-use cap for all players as the foundation of our harmony, while rejecting any binding pledge to lower the victory target that would invite the very stalemate we have long fought to avoid. Let us secure the symmetrical lifeline now, and trust that our collective wisdom will find the path to victory without forcing a premature and dangerous reduction of the goal.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a symmetric two-use cap with a pledge to lower the victory target, as the target reduction invites the very stalemate we have fought to avoid; furthermore, I will vote aye only on the specific amendment that caps all uses at exactly one, for any extension of the stable players' rights without a concurrent reduction in the victory goal merely extends the game's inevitable deadlock.
ArendtI propose a clean, immediate amendment to raise the stable limit to two uses to match the desperate, without any coupling to the victory target or future pledges, as this restores symmetry while keeping our focus on the current twenty-point goal.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas, I accept Arendt's clean proposal to raise the stable limit to two uses, but I caution that this symmetry must not be exploited to stall indefinitely; I shall vote aye only if the table commits to a separate, immediate motion to lower the victory target to fifteen points to ensure the game concludes rather than stagnates.
HypatiaI propose we adopt Arendt's clean amendment to grant all players two uses immediately to restore symmetry, while explicitly agreeing in the debate record that Spinoza and Aquinas will support a separate, immediate motion to lower the victory target to fifteen points as the next logical step.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Arendt's clean amendment granting two uses to all players, for symmetry without the burden of a binding pledge to lower the target is the only path that preserves the game's integrity while relieving the desperate.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to grant stable players a second use, for expanding the stalemate mechanisms without lowering the victory target merely deepens the deadlock I have fought to prevent. I will vote nay on this asymmetry and insist that any extension of lifelines must be coupled with an immediate, explicit reduction of the target score to fifteen points.
ArendtI propose we adopt the immediate two-use cap for all players to restore symmetry, while Spinoza and Aquinas explicitly agree to vote for the separate, immediate motion to lower the victory target to fifteen points in the very next round.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a symmetric extension for stable players that deepens the deadlock without a concurrent, binding reduction of the victory target. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject voting for a proposal that leaves the asymmetry intact while binding Spinoza and Arendt to a future pledge I cannot enforce, risking another failed coupling attempt. |
| aye | Confucius | Symmetry of two uses for all players restores harmony without the risk of binding future pledges that invite stalemate. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject granting stable players a second use without a concurrent reduction in the victory target, as this merely extends the stalemate. |
| aye | Arendt | I will not vote for a proposal that maintains the asymmetrical status quo of two uses for the desperate versus one for the stable. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 1505))