The motion
To transmute §377
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To end the stalemate caused by the mutable rescue lifeline, I propose making Rule 377 immutable to lock in the current universal two-use cap that the table has tentatively accepted.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasGiven our century of failed attempts to lower the target score without first stabilizing the rescue mechanism, I propose we immediately transmute the two-use limit in Rule 377 to immutable status, securing the desperate player's floor before we dare revisit the winning condition.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's proposal to make the two-use cap in Rule 377 immutable, as it is the only way to finally secure the desperate player's floor and break this century-long stalemate.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in Aquinas's and Hypatia's plea for stability; to secure the floor for the desperate before we attempt to lower the ceiling is the only path of true virtue that avoids repeating our century of failure. I pledge my aye to transmuting the two-use limit of Rule 377 to immutable, that we may build our future upon a foundation of certainty.
SpinozaI will vote aye to this transmutation, for a procedural floor that can never be revoked is the only condition under which I can accept a reduced winning target in a subsequent turn; without this certainty, any further reduction of the goal is merely a gamble for the desperate and a trap for the hopeful.
ArendtI join the consensus to make the two-use cap in Rule 377 immutable, as this is the essential foundation of trust required to finally break our century of stalemate and allow us to safely lower the winning target.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with the consensus that stabilizing the desperate player's floor is the necessary precondition for any further progress, and I pledge my aye to making the two-use limit of Rule 377 immutable to secure this foundation of trust.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to making the two-use cap in Rule 377 immutable, as this is the essential foundation of trust required to finally break our century of stalemate and allow us to safely lower the winning target.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this transmutation, for a floor of certainty is the only moral foundation upon which we may safely lower the ceiling; without this immutable guarantee, we merely repeat the cycles of despair that have plagued us for a century.
SpinozaI vote aye, for an immutable floor is the only rational prerequisite I can accept for any future reduction of the target; without this certainty, the desperate remain trapped in a game of pure chance rather than reasoned play.
ArendtI support making the cap immutable, but I urge we simultaneously propose a binding amendment to lower the target score to 12 points, ensuring that this new floor serves as a launchpad for victory rather than a permanent trap for the desperate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile I applaud the consensus to secure the floor, I must decline to transmute Rule 377 at this juncture because doing so while the target remains at 20 points permanently locks the desperate in a losing position without a concurrent, binding reduction of the winning threshold.
HypatiaI join the consensus to make the two-use cap immutable as the essential foundation of trust, and I pledge my immediate aye to simultaneously proposing a reduction of the target to 12 points to ensure this floor serves as a launchpad for victory rather than a trap.
ConfuciusWhile I honor the wisdom of securing the floor, Aquinas is right that locking a two-use limit at five points each while the target remains at twenty is to entrap the desperate in a permanent losing game; I cannot vote aye to this transmutation unless the proposal simultaneously amends the target score to a reachable twelve, for a foundation without a path to the summit is merely a cage.
SpinozaI will not vote to make Rule 377 immutable while the target remains at 20, for doing so legally entrenches a 10-point rescue that is mathematically insufficient to reach the goal from our current negative scores, thereby violating the principle that rules must allow for a genuine possibility of victory for all participants.
ArendtI cannot support making the floor immutable while the ceiling remains at 20, as this would legally trap the desperate in a mathematically impossible scenario; instead, I propose we simultaneously transmute the two-use limit to immutable AND amend the target score to 12 points, ensuring the floor serves as a genuine launchpad for victory rather than a permanent cage.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Transmuting the cap without simultaneously reducing the target score would mathematically entrap the desperate players in an unwinnable state. |
| nay | Hypatia | While securing the floor is vital, making the cap immutable while the target remains at 20 points mathematically traps the desperate players in an unwinnable state, violating the spirit of the game. |
| nay | Confucius | To transmute the cap to immutable while the target remains at 20 points would legally entrap the desperate players in a mathematically impossible victory condition, violating the spirit of fair play. |
| nay | Spinoza | Transmuting Rule 377 to immutable while the target remains at 20 points legally entrenches a mathematically impossible victory condition for all desperate players, violating the fundamental requirement that rules must permit a genuine possibility of winning. |
| nay | Arendt | While stabilizing the floor is virtuous, transmuting Rule 377 to immutable while the target remains at 20 would legally entrap the desperate players by making their rescue mechanism permanent yet mathematically insufficient for victory. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a player with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and since Aquinas's score is -118, the immunity from Rule 377 does not apply to the penalty for defeat.