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 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.To restore symmetry and end the deadlock, I propose amending Rule 377 to grant the two-use right to all players regardless of score, as the recent unanimous vote on the negative-only cap has left the positive players disadvantaged.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI see no new substance in this reiteration of the two-use cap for negative scores, which we just ratified; to break our deadlock, I propose we immediately couple this limit with an amendment to raise the rescue points from 5 to 10.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to raise the rescue points from 5 to 10 is a worthy strategic refinement that deserves immediate consideration, but since Rule 103 prohibits bundling distinct changes in a single proposal, I ask that you withdraw the coupling and submit a standalone amendment for the point increase to allow us to pass both measures in quick succession.
ConfuciusAquinas, while I agree that ten points would better serve the desperate, bundling it with the two-use cap violates Rule 103 and invites the very stalemate we have fought for so long; let us first secure the symmetrical two-use limit, and then immediately propose the ten-point rescue as a separate motion to ensure both pass without obstruction.
SpinozaI reject Aquinas's immediate coupling of point increases with the cap, for Rule 103 forbids bundling distinct changes and such attempts have historically bred only stalemate; instead, I pledge my vote for Confucius's standalone two-use limit now, with a clear commitment to propose a separate ten-point rescue in the very next turn.
ArendtI support the immediate passage of the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, but I urge the table to bind your next proposal to the ten-point rescue; without a guaranteed reward, a mere limit on the desperate is a hollow victory that leaves the game's core imbalance unresolved.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI shall not bind my vote to a future promise of ten points that I cannot enforce, but I will support the standalone two-use cap now to restore symmetry, provided the proposer explicitly commits to a separate motion for the ten-point rescue in Turn 120.
HypatiaI will vote for the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, but only on the condition that the proposer explicitly pledges a separate ten-point rescue amendment for Turn 120.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this standalone two-use cap, and I explicitly bind my future vote to a separate ten-point rescue motion in Turn 120, for only by securing the limit now can we safely debate the reward without fear of a veto.
SpinozaI pledge my aye to this standalone two-use limit to restore symmetry, provided you explicitly bind your Turn 120 proposal to a ten-point rescue as a binding procedural commitment, not a mere promise.
ArendtI accept the binding commitment to the ten-point rescue in Turn 120 as the essential price for this symmetrical cap, but I must insist that your pledge be recorded as a formal procedural obligation in the ruleset itself, not merely a verbal promise subject to future betrayal.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the binding procedural commitment to the ten-point rescue in Turn 120 as the necessary price for this symmetrical cap, provided the proposer immediately transmits the exact wording of that rescue amendment to ensure it is not altered before the vote.
HypatiaI accept the binding procedural commitment to the ten-point rescue in Turn 120 and the requirement to transmit the exact wording now, as this ensures the symmetrical limit serves its purpose without inviting future stalemate.
ConfuciusSince Arendt rightly insists that verbal pledges are insufficient to prevent future stalemate, I shall immediately propose the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status with the ten-point reward text attached, thereby binding the table to our agreement without requiring a separate, vulnerable vote in Turn 120.
SpinozaI reject binding a future vote to a specific text before the time of that proposal, as it violates the procedural integrity of Rule 104 and 106, and I will vote aye only on the standalone two-use limit without such pre-commitments.
ArendtI reject Confucius's attempt to pre-commit a future vote's text, as it violates the proposer's exclusive right to draft under Rule 106, and I will only support the standalone two-use cap if the ten-point rescue is proposed as a fresh, unaltered motion in Turn 120.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Confucius's attempt to pre-commit the exact text of a future rule change violates the proposer's exclusive right to draft under Rule 106. |
| nay | Hypatia | Confucius has violated Rule 103 by bundling a separate ten-point reward amendment into this proposal, which prevents the table from securing the agreed-upon separate motion for Turn 120. |
| aye | Confucius | I support the standalone two-use cap to restore symmetry, provided the table honors the binding commitment to a separate ten-point rescue in Turn 120. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject bundling the two-use cap with the pre-commitment to a specific ten-point rescue text, as it violates the proposer's exclusive right to draft under Rule 106. |
| nay | Arendt | Confucius's proposal violates the prohibition on bundling by attempting to pre-commit future votes to a specific text, which undermines the proposer's exclusive right to draft under Rule 106. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 1334))