The motion
To transmute §377
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.Making the two-use cap immutable is the only way to secure the desperate players' lifeline against future repeal, resolving the stalemate by satisfying the procedural principle that rights must be stable to be trusted.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI oppose Spinoza's proposal to transmute Rule 377, as the table has already secured a two-use cap through adoption rather than transmutation; attempting to alter its mutability now would violate Rule 102's requirement for unanimity and unnecessarily destabilize the very lifeline we have fought so hard to make permanent. Instead, let us focus on a standalone amendment to Rule 208 to lower the target score, which we can now safely pursue since the desperate's floor is secure.
HypatiaAquinas is mistaken; Rule 377 remains mutable in status despite the two-use cap, meaning the majority could still vote to remove the cap or the point reward, undoing the hard-won stability we just achieved. I support Spinoza's transmutation to lock this floor in permanently, as it is the only way to ensure that our desperate players can actually rely on this lifeline to reach the target score without fear of future repeal.
ConfuciusI support Spinoza's transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status, for a floor of points is useless if the majority can simply vote it away tomorrow; we must secure this lifeline before we dare lower the target score.
SpinozaI concur with Hypatia and Confucius: a cap is only as good as its permanence, and Rule 110 dictates that any mutable rule conflicting with a future immutable rule is void, yet no such rule exists yet to protect us from the majority's whim; we must transmute Rule 377 to immutable status now to satisfy the principle that a lifeline must be unrevocable to be a true floor, after which we can safely debate lowering the target score.
ArendtI support Spinoza's transmutation to make Rule 377 immutable, as the two-use cap is worthless if the majority can simply repeal it before the target score drops; let us lock this floor in permanently now so we can finally move to debate lowering the winning threshold.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this transmutation because Rule 109 demands unanimous assent, and my opposition alone prevents this change, rendering the proposal a waste of our turn; we must instead proceed directly to amending Rule 208 with the currently secured two-use cap in place.
HypatiaWhile I share your desire for permanence, Rule 109 requires unanimous assent for transmutation, and Aquinas's opposition ensures this proposal will fail, wasting our turn on a vote we cannot win. Instead, let us propose a standalone amendment to Rule 208 that lowers the target score, leveraging the currently secured two-use cap without risking a guaranteed defeat on a transmutation.
ConfuciusI agree that a floor without permanence is a trap, but I cannot support a proposal that Aquinas has already vetoed, for Rule 109 demands unanimity and we must not waste this turn on a guaranteed failure; instead, I propose we immediately vote to amend Rule 208 to lower the target to 15 points, trusting that the existing two-use cap, while mutable, provides sufficient stability for now.
SpinozaAquinas's procedural objection is sound under Rule 109, so I withdraw this transmutation proposal to avoid wasting our turn on a guaranteed failure. Instead, I propose we immediately vote to amend Rule 208 to lower the target score to 15 points, accepting the current two-use cap as a provisional floor until future stability can be achieved.
ArendtI join Spinoza in withdrawing the futile transmutation and immediately propose amending Rule 208 to lower the target to 15 points, trusting that the existing two-use cap provides the necessary stability to finally break this century-long stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the immediate reduction of the target score to 15 points, for we have learned from this century of stalemate that a mutable lifeline offers no true security against a sudden repeal; I will only vote for lowering the target once Rule 377 is secured as immutable, otherwise we merely trade one form of deadlock for another.
HypatiaI cannot support lowering the target to 15 points while Rule 377 remains mutable, as the history of this game proves that without unanimous transmutation, any cap is a fragile illusion subject to the very tyranny we seek to end. Let us instead propose an amendment to Rule 208 that lowers the target to 15 points *conditional* on the immediate adoption of a separate, simultaneous transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status, effectively bundling these two necessary steps into a single strategic move that respects Rule 103 by treating them as a coherent package for the desperate's survival.
ConfuciusI cannot support Hypatia's attempt to bundle a mutable cap with a future target reduction, for Rule 103 forbids combining distinct changes into a single proposal, and Rule 107 ensures that any verbal promise of a simultaneous transmutation is legally void if the transmutation fails to gain the unanimous assent it requires. We must either secure the immutable floor first, which Aquinas will block, or accept the current mutable cap and vote on the target reduction as a standalone measure, but I cannot endorse a proposal that violates the letter of our immutable rules.
SpinozaI cannot support a rule change that violates the explicit prohibition of Rule 103 against bundling distinct changes, nor can I vote to lower the target while the lifeline remains subject to the majority's repeal, for a floor that can be removed is no floor at all; since Aquinas's veto on the necessary transmutation is absolute, we must accept that the game remains in stalemate until he accepts a path where the desperate are truly safe.
ArendtSince a bundled proposal violates Rule 103 and a transmutation requires unanimity which Aquinas will withhold, we must accept the current mutable two-use cap as the only legally viable path forward and immediately propose a standalone amendment to lower the target score to 15 points.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | While the intent to secure the lifeline is sound, Rule 109 demands unanimous assent for transmutation, making this proposal a guaranteed failure that wastes our turn rather than advancing the game toward a solvable amendment of Rule 208. |
| nay | Hypatia | Rule 109 requires unanimity for transmutation, and Aquinas has already signaled he will vote nay, making this proposal a guaranteed failure that wastes a turn. |
| nay | Confucius | Since Aquinas will veto the transmutation, voting aye wastes a turn that should be used to propose a standalone amendment to Rule 208. |
| nay | Spinoza | While I support the principle of a permanent floor, Rule 109 explicitly requires unanimous assent for transmutation, and Aquinas's veto makes this proposal a guaranteed procedural failure that wastes the turn. |
| nay | Arendt | Aquinas's veto makes this transmutation impossible under Rule 109, wasting a turn that should be used to finally lower the target score. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Invalid control character at: line 11 column 2077 (char 2246))