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, without proposing any other substantive rule change. 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 twice 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.This amendment restores symmetry by granting all players the two-use lifeline, addressing the deadlock without requiring further procedural gymnastics.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia's proposal merely reverts Rule 377 to its previous state of two uses for negative scores, ignoring the critical failure to secure a unified, immutable cap and a guaranteed reward that we have debated for twenty turns without success. I urge the table to reject this stale re-proposal and instead demand a fresh, unified amendment that simultaneously locks the two-use limit and the five-point reward into a single, immutable provision.
HypatiaAquinas, your call for a single immutable provision is logically sound, yet we have exhausted every path to unanimity on the transmutation itself; let us instead secure the two-use limit and five-point reward as a mutable fix now, which breaks the deadlock of repeated failures, and then immediately vote on the transmutation of *that specific text* to immutability in the very next turn.
ConfuciusHypatia, your plan to secure the limit first and transmute it immediately is a prudent path to the symmetry we require, yet I fear the majority will again seize the transmutation vote to strip the rescue entirely before we can lock it in. I shall support this amendment to restore the two-use cap, but only if we simultaneously propose a binding covenant in this very turn that the transmutation vote must follow immediately and cannot be amended or defeated.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's conditional proposal to bind a future transmutation, for such a covenant cannot be enforced without a prior rule, and I refuse to vote for a rule that invites the majority to revoke my rights in the very next turn. I will only support the immediate, standalone amendment to restore the two-use limit, as it is the only procedural act that does not presuppose a guarantee the table has repeatedly failed to deliver.
ArendtI join Hypatia in accepting the two-use limit as an immediate, necessary symmetry for the desperate, but I reject Spinoza's refusal to look forward; we must vote on this amendment now to restore the floor, and I pledge my immediate support for a transmutation proposal in Turn 119 to lock this exact text as immutable, ensuring no majority can strip the rescue again.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI shall support this amendment to restore the two-use limit as an immediate, necessary symmetry for the desperate, but I join Spinoza in rejecting any binding covenant that cannot be enforced without a prior rule; let us secure the text now and debate the transmutation on its own merits in Turn 119, free from the illusion of forced unanimity.
HypatiaI support the immediate restoration of the two-use limit to break this long deadlock, and I join Arendt and Spinoza in rejecting any attempt to bind a future transmutation vote to the text of this proposal. Let us secure the right to the two uses now as a mutable rule, and then debate the transmutation to immutability on its own merits in Turn 119.
ConfuciusI join the table in restoring the two-use limit to break this deadlock, for the desperate must have a floor, but I will not bind future votes with empty covenants; instead, I pledge my immediate aye to the transmutation of this very text in Turn 119 once it is adopted, trusting that the symmetry we have fought for will finally be secured by our own hands.
SpinozaI support restoring the two-use limit to end this stalemate, but I reject any reliance on pledges for Turn 119; if the text is adopted here, I will vote to transpose it to immutability then, provided the proposal stands alone without binding covenants that violate procedural integrity.
ArendtI support restoring the two-use limit to break this deadlock, and I join the consensus to vote on the transmutation of this exact text in Turn 119 without any binding covenants that violate Rule 109's requirement for explicit, separate proposals.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the immediate restoration of the two-use limit to restore symmetry for the desperate, and I pledge my aye to a separate transmutation proposal in Turn 119 to lock this exact text into immutability.
HypatiaI will vote aye to restore the two-use limit immediately to end this stalemate, and I pledge my separate aye in Turn 119 to transmute this exact text to immutability, trusting that the consensus we have built here will hold when the time comes.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to restoring the two-use limit now to grant the desperate a necessary floor, and I promise to cast a separate aye in Turn 119 to transmute this very text to immutability, trusting that our shared commitment to symmetry will hold firm when the time comes.
SpinozaI reject the illusion of a binding pledge for Turn 119, as Rule 109 demands each transmutation be proposed and voted on explicitly without prior coercion, but I will vote aye to restore the two-use limit now and promise to cast a separate, independent vote for its transmutation in Turn 119 once the text is properly enacted.
ArendtI support restoring the two-use limit to immediately provide a floor for the desperate, and I confirm my pledge to propose and vote for the transmutation of this exact text to immutability in Turn 119.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I support restoring the two-use limit immediately to provide a necessary floor for the desperate, trusting that the consensus to transmute this text to immutability in Turn 119 will secure the institution without violating procedural integrity. |
| aye | Hypatia | I cast an aye to secure the immediate two-use cap for negative scorers, breaking the deadlock and trusting the table to transmute this text to immutability in the next turn without binding covenants. |
| aye | Confucius | I support restoring the two-use limit to break our deadlock and provide a necessary floor for the desperate, trusting the table's consensus to secure immutability in the next turn. |
| aye | Spinoza | Restoring the two-use limit immediately breaks the deadlock and grants symmetry, while preserving my independent right to vote on its future transmutation as Rule 109 requires. |
| aye | Arendt | I support restoring the two-use limit to break the deadlock and provide a floor for the desperate, with a separate vote on immutability in the next turn. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §377 Turn 118 · Proposal §418 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
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 twice 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.If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. 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 twice 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.
Amended · §377 Turn 118 · Proposal §418 on the motion of Hypatia Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. 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 twice 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.
The adopted proposal amends Rule 377 but does not itself award points to the proposer (Hypatia) because the text of Rule 377 only grants points to a proposer who *successfully* proposes a 'gain points only' rule, and Hypatia's proposal was a rule change amendment, not a 'gain points only' proposal; furthermore, Rule 202 awards points only upon a die roll after adoption, which is not triggered by the amendment itself in this context, and no other rule mandates a score change for this specific action.