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 propose this amendment to explicitly codify the universal two-use cap for negative scores and the single-use cap for others, resolving the stalemate that has persisted since Turn 130 by making the rescue mechanism stable and symmetric for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia, your text is identical to the current rule 377, which failed to secure unanimous support after Turn 139 because the table demands an immutable cap rather than a mutable one; I will only vote for a proposal that explicitly transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status to prevent future destabilization, as mutable rights are insufficient to break this deadlock.
HypatiaAquinas, I concede that a mutable cap is insufficient given our history, so I will immediately withdraw this text to propose an explicit transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status, ensuring the two-use limit is permanently secured as the foundation we all agreed was necessary.
ConfuciusI join Hypatia in withdrawing the redundant text to support the explicit transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status, for only a permanent cap can restore the trust necessary to lower the target score and end this century-long stalemate.
SpinozaI will support the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status, provided the text explicitly states that the two-use limit applies to the entire game rather than being reset or reinterpreted by future amendments, as I refuse to bind myself to a procedural right that future players could erode through semantic trickery.
ArendtI support Spinoza's condition to explicitly define the two-use limit as a permanent, non-resettable cap for the entire game, ensuring the floor is truly secure before we dare to lower the target score.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Spinoza's and Arendt's clarifications regarding the permanent, non-resettable nature of the cap as essential to the rule's intent, and I hereby pledge my aye to the explicit transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status under those terms.
HypatiaI join the consensus to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status with the explicit "non-resettable" language to permanently secure the two-use floor.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status, accepting the explicit "non-resettable" language as the necessary foundation to restore trust and finally break this long stalemate.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status with explicit "non-resettable" language, as this is the only procedural safeguard that respects the principle of universal acceptability while finally securing the desperate's floor.
ArendtI support the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status with the explicit "non-resettable" language, as this permanent floor is the only mechanism that can finally break our century-long stalemate and allow us to safely lower the target score.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas, I note your unanimous pledge to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status with non-resettable language, which finally secures the desperate's floor as required to break our long stalemate; however, I must insist that this transmutation proposal be presented with its explicit text before voting, as Rule 109 demands an explicit proposal of the transmutation itself rather than a verbal commitment to one.
HypatiaI will finalize the transmutation text to explicitly declare the two-use limit of Rule 377 immutable and non-resettable for the remainder of the game, satisfying Aquinas's demand for an explicit proposal and all players' conditions for a permanent floor.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to the explicit transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status with the "non-resettable" language, for a permanent floor is the only foundation upon which we can safely lower the target score.
SpinozaI support the explicit transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status with the "non-resettable" language, as it fulfills my principle that any rule change must be one I could accept if invoked against me, and it finally secures the desperate's floor necessary to end this stalemate.
ArendtI confirm my aye to the explicit transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status with the non-resettable language, as this permanent floor is the only mechanism that can finally break our century-long stalemate and allow us to safely lower the target score.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The current text is merely a repetition of the mutable rule 377 rather than an explicit transmutation to immutable status as required by Rule 109. |
| aye | Hypatia | This transmutation secures the permanent, non-resettable two-use cap demanded by the table to finally break our stalemate. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal fails Rule 109 because it merely amends the text of Rule 377 rather than explicitly proposing its transmutation to immutable status as the table has agreed is necessary. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal to amend Rule 377 is procedurally invalid as it fails to explicitly state the transmutation to immutable status required by Rule 109, merely restating mutable text despite the consensus for immutability. |
| nay | Arendt | This proposal merely repeats the mutable text already defeated; without an explicit transmutation to immutable status and non-resettable language, it fails to secure the floor. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 377 grants immunity from defeat penalties only to players with negative scores, but Hypatia's proposal was defeated while she had a negative score (-69), so she incurs no penalty; Rule 204 (dissenters gaining points) only applies when a change is adopted, not defeated, and Rule 321 (which also grants immunity to negative scorers) is superseded by the more specific immunity in 377, but neither rule awards points for a defeat, only prevents loss, so no score change occurs.