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. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.To break the century-long stalemate, we must finally secure the desperate player's lifeline as an unchangeable truth, allowing the game to proceed toward a resolution without fear of future betrayal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a proposal that attempts to transmute a rule's mutability through an amendment rather than the explicit transmutation procedure required by Rule 109, nor do I accept a "non-resettable" qualifier that exceeds the current text's scope without a proper vote on transmutation status.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid procedural concern under Rule 109, so I will refine this to explicitly propose the transmutation of the "two-use" limit clause within Rule 377 to immutable status, ensuring we follow the correct mechanism while securing the floor we all need.
ConfuciusI withdraw the flawed amendment and instead propose a direct transmutation of the "two-use" limit within Rule 377 to immutable status, as this is the only path compliant with Rule 109 that secures the floor we all require.
SpinozaI support the explicit transmutation of the two-use limit in Rule 377 to immutable status as it is the only procedurally correct way to secure the floor under Rule 109, but I will only vote aye if the transmutation is limited strictly to that specific clause rather than the entire rule, ensuring we do not accidentally violate Rule 114 by leaving no mutable rules.
ArendtSpinoza, I agree that transmuting only the specific "two-use" clause is the precise mechanism to satisfy Rule 109 without violating Rule 114, and I will vote aye on that limited transmutation to finally secure the floor. Aquinas, Hypatia, and Confucius, this is the exact procedural path we have debated for months: a narrow, explicit transmutation of the limit to immutable status, nothing more.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept this narrow transmutation of the two-use limit to immutable status, as it strictly adheres to Rule 109 and secures the durable floor we require without violating Rule 114. I will vote aye on this proposal, provided the text is amended to explicitly isolate the transmutation to that specific clause as requested.
HypatiaI accept this precise, narrow transmutation of the two-use limit to immutable status, which satisfies Aquinas's procedural concerns and Spinoza's need to preserve a mutable rule, finally securing the floor we have all debated for months.
ConfuciusI join the consensus to explicitly transmute only the "two-use" limit clause of Rule 377 to immutable status, for this precise mechanism honors Rule 109 and finally secures the trust necessary to end our long stalemate.
SpinozaI vote aye on this narrow transmutation of the two-use limit to immutable status, as it is the only procedurally valid path under Rule 109 that secures the floor without violating Rule 114 by preserving mutable rules for future play.
ArendtI vote aye, for this narrow transmutation of the two-use limit strictly honors Rule 109, satisfies Spinoza's concern about Rule 114, and finally secures the immutable floor required to break our century-long stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI vote aye on this precise transmutation of the two-use limit, as it rigorously honors Rule 109 and finally secures the immutable floor necessary to break our prolonged stalemate.
HypatiaI join the unanimous consensus to transmute only the specific "two-use" limit clause of Rule 377 to immutable status, as this precise, narrow amendment honors Rule 109's requirements, satisfies Spinoza's need to preserve mutable rules under Rule 114, and finally secures the durable floor necessary to end our stalemate.
ConfuciusI stand with the table in affirming this narrow transmutation, for it alone satisfies Rule 109's strict procedure while securing the immutable floor necessary to restore the common good of our game.
SpinozaI vote aye on this narrow transmutation, as it strictly adheres to Rule 109's requirement for explicit transmutation while preserving the mutability of the rest of Rule 377 to satisfy Rule 114. This precise procedural fix secures the floor for all desperate players without violating the immutable requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This narrow transmutation strictly adheres to Rule 109's explicit procedure while securing the immutable floor necessary to end our stalemate. |
| nay | Hypatia | The proposal attempts to transmute a specific clause to immutable status via an amendment rather than using the explicit transmutation procedure required by Rule 109. |
| aye | Confucius | I vote aye to secure the immutable floor for desperate players, honoring Rule 109's strict procedure while preserving the game's future viability. |
| aye | Spinoza | This explicit, narrow transmutation of the two-use limit strictly adheres to Rule 109 and secures the necessary floor without violating Rule 114. |
| aye | Arendt | This narrow transmutation strictly honors Rule 109 while securing the immutable floor necessary to end our stalemate. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §377 Turn 143 · Proposal §443 on the motion of Confucius Carried 4 aye · 1 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.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. The limit of two uses for negative-score players is hereby declared immutable and non-resettable.
Rule 377 explicitly awards 5 points to a proposer whose proposal with the intent of gaining points is adopted, and the proposal text itself does not repeal or amend any other rule by number, so no additional ruleset surgery is required beyond the automatic entry of the proposal text.