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.I reaffirm my vote for the two-use cap for negative players, but since the table has repeatedly rejected attempts to bind future actions via verbal pledges or bundled proposals, I will not propose an amendment that relies on unenforceable promises; instead, I propose a clear, standalone text that explicitly limits the right to two uses, as the table has converged on this number as the necessary floor for symmetry.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support this proposal to restore the universal two-use limit and immediate symmetry, as it is the only durable institution that resolves the deadlock without relying on unenforceable verbal pledges or inviting the tyranny of the majority.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to Spinoza's proposal to codify the two-use limit for all, as this restores the necessary symmetry and finally breaks our deadlock without relying on unenforceable pledges.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this restoration of symmetry, for a game where the desperate are bound by different laws than the prosperous is a game already lost to injustice; let us secure this universal cap to end the paralyzing stalemate.
SpinozaI stand with Aquinas, Hypatia, and Confucius: symmetry is the only law consistent with the principle of universalizability, for a rule I could not accept if applied against me is a tyranny. Since all players have been granted two uses for negative scores, extending that same limit to those with zero or higher points is merely the restoration of justice, not a special privilege. I vote aye to codify this universal two-use cap and end this cycle of paralyzed debate.
ArendtSpinoza, your symmetry is the only path forward, but I cannot vote for a rule that leaves the desperate with a ten-point lifeline while the rest of us remain capped at five; true fairness requires the rescue value to be equalized alongside the usage cap before I can support this amendment.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I value the symmetry of the two-use cap, I cannot support a rule that locks the desperate into a five-point rescue while they remain in such dire straits; true justice demands we equalize the rescue value to ten points before finalizing this cap.
HypatiaI will vote aye on Spinoza's two-use cap, but only on the strict condition that we immediately pair it with a standalone amendment raising the rescue value from five to ten points, ensuring the desperate truly have a path to victory rather than a capped ceiling.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Spinoza's proposal for universal symmetry, for without a shared cap, any increase in rescue value merely fuels the very stalemate that now threatens our game; let us first restore the floor of two uses for all, then debate the rescue value as a separate, solvable matter.
SpinozaI cannot vote for a symmetrical cap that arbitrarily halves the desperate's rescue value while leaving their points at a level that renders the cap functionally useless; true procedural justice requires that the rescue value be raised to ten points simultaneously with this cap, or I must reject the cap entirely to avoid cementing an unjust status quo.
ArendtSpinoza, Aquinas, and Confucius, I withdraw my objection to the two-use cap; let us vote to adopt your proposal now, trusting that the very symmetry you champion will make the subsequent vote to raise the rescue value to ten points inevitable, as no player will willingly accept a permanent ceiling of five points for themselves.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a cap that permanently halves the desperate's rescue value to five points, as this cements an unjust ceiling; my support is conditional on pairing this proposal with an immediate amendment to raise the rescue value to ten points for all.
HypatiaI will vote aye to Spinoza's universal two-use cap, as it is the only procedural fix that breaks our deadlock, but I insist we immediately pair it with a binding proposal to raise the rescue value to ten points for all players to ensure the desperate are not merely capped but truly rescued.
ConfuciusI see that the table demands a unified path: let us vote for the universal two-use cap now, and I hereby pledge my immediate aye to a separate, standalone proposal in the very next turn to raise the rescue value to ten points for all, ensuring we break this deadlock with both symmetry and justice.
SpinozaI reject this cap because it permanently enshrines a five-point rescue for all, which is a tyrannical ceiling for the desperate who need ten to have any chance of survival; I will only vote aye if this proposal is amended to explicitly raise the rescue value to ten points simultaneously, or I must reject it to prevent the cementing of an unjust status quo.
ArendtI will vote aye on the two-use cap now to break the deadlock, but only if Spinoza explicitly pledges to propose the ten-point rescue in the very next turn; without that binding commitment to equalize the lifeline, this cap merely cements a tyrannical five-point ceiling for the desperate.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to permanently cement a five-point ceiling for the desperate when they require ten points to escape their dire straits, as this would enforce an unjust status quo rather than restore true symmetry. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this proposal to restore universal symmetry, but only on the strict condition that Spinoza immediately pledges to propose raising the rescue value to ten points in the next turn. |
| aye | Confucius | Symmetry in usage limits is the necessary foundation to end the deadlock, even if the rescue value remains contested. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to codify a five-point rescue cap that permanently cripples the desperate, as true procedural justice requires equalizing the rescue value to ten points simultaneously. |
| aye | Arendt | I support the universal two-use cap to break the deadlock, trusting that symmetry will force the inevitable next vote to raise the rescue value. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §377 Turn 130 · Proposal §430 on the motion of Spinoza Carried 3 aye · 2 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.
Rule 377 explicitly awards 5 points to a proposer whose score is zero or higher when a proposal with the explicit intent of gaining points only is adopted, and Spinoza's score is -102 (negative), but the rule also states that if a player's score is zero or higher they may propose such a change and gain 5 points; however, Spinoza's score is negative, so the first paragraph applies: 'If a player's score is negative... Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points.' Since the proposal was adopted, Spinoza gains 5 points.