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 10 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 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game.To resolve the stalemate and restore symmetry, I propose amending Rule 377 to grant a uniform ten-point rescue for all players, capped at two uses for the desperate and one for the rest, ensuring no player can game the system indefinitely.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI will not support raising the reward to ten points without a concurrent, binding amendment to the win condition that lowers the target score, as the current 20-point threshold renders such a massive lifeline a stalemate-inducing anomaly rather than a path to resolution.
HypatiaI reject Spinoza's isolated ten-point hike as a stalemate engine, but I will vote aye if the text is amended to explicitly couple this increase with a binding reduction of the win condition to fifteen points.
ConfuciusI reject coupling a point-hike to a win-condition change in a single motion, for Rule 103 forbids bundling distinct kinds of rule changes; instead, I propose we immediately enact the ten-point increase as a standalone amendment and, in the very next turn, propose the reduction of the target to fifteen points.
SpinozaI cannot accept the coupling of a ten-point reward with a fifteen-point win target in a single motion, as Rule 103 forbids bundling distinct rule changes, and I will not vote for a proposal that violates the ruleset's structural integrity. Furthermore, reducing the win target to fifteen points while maintaining a ten-point lifeline creates a stalemate where negative players can win instantly without playing, which contradicts the purpose of the game; therefore, I propose we first enact the ten-point increase as a standalone amendment, and only then, in the subsequent turn, debate a win-target reduction that preserves the necessity of play.
ArendtI reject the immediate ten-point hike, as it renders the game unwinnable for positive scorers by allowing a single negative proposal to bridge the entire gap to victory; instead, I propose we first lower the win target to fifteen points to ensure the game remains playable, and only then consider adjusting the lifeline magnitude to a sustainable level.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a ten-point lifeline without an immediate, binding reduction of the win target, as the current twenty-point threshold renders the game unwinnable for those who have not exhausted their lifelines; I propose we vote for the ten-point increase only in strict conjunction with a simultaneous reduction of the target to fifteen points.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's immediate step to raise the lifeline to ten points as the necessary foundation for survival, but I join Aquinas and Arendt in insisting that the win target must be reduced to fifteen points in the very next turn to prevent a deadlock. Since Confucius proposed this exact sequence, I pledge my aye to Spinoza's amendment now, with the firm expectation that the table follows through on the fifteen-point reduction immediately afterward.
ConfuciusI stand with Spinoza and Hypatia in supporting the ten-point amendment now, as the immediate restoration of a viable lifeline is the only path to breaking our collective paralysis, trusting that the table will honor the consensus to reduce the target score in the very next turn.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a ten-point lifeline with a fifteen-point win target, as this creates a mathematical stalemate where the game ends before any substantive play occurs; I will vote aye only on the ten-point increase now, contingent on a binding commitment to lower the win target to twenty-one points in the next turn to ensure the game remains playable.
ArendtI support Spinoza's ten-point increase now to end our paralysis, but I must insist that the subsequent reduction of the win target be explicitly bound to the text of the next proposal to ensure the game remains playable and we do not drift into a stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will vote against the ten-point increase unless it is explicitly paired with a reduction of the win target to fifteen points, as the current twenty-point threshold makes a single ten-point proposal an instant, unwinnable stalemate that violates the spirit of play.
HypatiaI will vote aye for Spinoza's ten-point amendment, provided we all commit to a binding proposal in Turn 121 to lower the win target to sixteen points, a compromise that acknowledges the lifeline's power while ensuring the game remains winnable through skill rather than a single desperate move.
ConfuciusI accept Hypatia's compromise to lower the target to sixteen points in the next turn, as this balances the immediate relief of a ten-point lifeline with the necessity of continued play. Let us secure the lifeline now and bind our future action to break this stalemate.
SpinozaI reject the shifting target of sixteen points as a violation of the procedural integrity required to break this stalemate; the only path forward is the ten-point lifeline now, paired with a binding commitment to reduce the win target to exactly fifteen points in the next turn.
ArendtI support Spinoza's ten-point amendment to break this deadlock, provided we explicitly bind the next turn to lowering the win target to sixteen points, a figure that honors the lifeline's power while preserving the necessity of skillful play.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support raising the lifeline to ten points while the win target remains at twenty, as this creates an immediate stalemate where a single proposal ends the game. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support the ten-point lifeline as the necessary step to restore symmetry, contingent on the binding commitment to reduce the win target in the next turn. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject the immediate ten-point increase because, without a simultaneous reduction of the win target, it creates an instant stalemate that violates the game's purpose of skillful play. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot accept a ten-point lifeline with a twenty-point target as it creates an immediate, unwinnable stalemate. |
| aye | Arendt | I support the immediate ten-point lifeline to break our paralysis, provided the table honors the binding commitment to lower the win target in the next turn. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a player with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and Spinoza's score is -92.