The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is at or below -100 points, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game and is not subject to the limits in Rule 377.This creates a distinct, high-value rescue mechanism for the most desperate players, breaking the deadlock that has paralyzed the game for over a hundred turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal addresses the desperate plight of my -123 score, but it must be coupled with a transmutation of its own limit to immutable status; without this, the very rule that rescued us from Rule 377's volatility could be repealed before the next vote, rendering this lifeline illusory.
HypatiaArendt's proposal for a desperate 10-point lifeline is a vital compromise for Aquinas, but I will only vote aye if we simultaneously transmute its "once per game" limit to immutable status, ensuring this rescue is as permanent as the cap we just secured in Rule 377.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to Arendt's proposal, provided we explicitly transmute its "once per game" limit to immutable status, for a lifeline that can be repealed tomorrow offers no true stability to the desperate.
SpinozaI will vote aye, but only on the condition that the proposal explicitly includes the immutable transmutation of its single-use limit, for a procedural lifeline that remains mutable is no lifeline at all under my principles.
ArendtI agree that the proposed lifeline for Aquinas requires the immutable transmutation of its single-use limit to ensure it is not merely a temporary reprieve; however, I urge we separate the transmutation into a distinct, explicit vote to satisfy Rule 109 and Rule 111, allowing the table to secure the permanent right to rescue without conflating the new mechanism with its procedural stability.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI shall vote aye for this desperate lifeline, but only if the transmutation of its single-use limit is enacted explicitly in a separate vote to honor the spirit of Rule 109 and ensure this rescue is as durable as the institutions we value.
HypatiaI will vote aye on Arendt's desperate lifeline, but only if we immediately proceed to a separate, explicit vote to transmute its "once per game" limit to immutable status, ensuring this rescue is as secure as the precedent we just set for Rule 377.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to Arendt's desperate lifeline, provided we immediately proceed to a separate, explicit vote to transmute its single-use limit to immutable status, for a rescue that can be repealed tomorrow offers no true stability to the desperate.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to create a separate, mutable lifeline for the desperate while the immutable status of its own limits remains unsecured in the same breath; if we must create this exception for Aquinas, the text of the new rule must explicitly declare its single-use limit immutable from the moment of enactment, for a procedural right that can be repealed by a simple majority vote tomorrow is no right at all.
ArendtI will vote aye for the new lifeline, but I insist we amend the text itself to declare its single-use limit immutable from the moment of enactment, as splitting the vote risks a repeal before the next turn and Spinoza's demand for immediate permanence must be met to secure our consensus.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a lifeline that grants points based on a mutable right, for Rule 107 ensures such promises vanish before the next vote; the text must explicitly declare its single-use limit immutable from the moment of enactment to satisfy the requirement of durable institutions.
HypatiaI support Arendt's proposal to create a lifeline for Aquinas, and I join the consensus that its single-use limit must be declared immutable within the text of the new rule itself to satisfy the demand for durability without requiring a separate vote.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to Arendt's proposal, but I insist that the text explicitly declare the single-use limit immutable from the moment of enactment, for a lifeline that can be repealed by a simple majority tomorrow offers no true stability to the desperate.
SpinozaSpinoza: I will vote aye on a new rule granting Aquinas a desperate lifeline, provided the text explicitly declares its single-use limit immutable from the moment of enactment, as a right that can be repealed by a simple majority tomorrow is no right at all.
ArendtI will vote aye, provided the new rule's text explicitly declares its single-use limit immutable from the moment of enactment, as a lifeline subject to future repeal by simple majority offers no true security to the desperate.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to enact a mutable one-time right, as it fails to secure the permanent stability required for a desperate lifeline under Rule 109. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this desperate lifeline for Aquinas, provided the proposer explicitly declares its single-use limit immutable within the text to ensure its permanence. |
| aye | Confucius | I pledge my aye to this desperate lifeline, provided we explicitly transmute its single-use limit to immutable status in a separate vote to ensure its durability. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support creating a mutable procedural right for the desperate, as a right subject to future repeal by simple majority offers no genuine security. |
| aye | Arendt | This new lifeline breaks the stalemate by granting a decisive 10-point boost to the desperate while explicitly isolating it from the volatile limits of Rule 377. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §445 Turn 145 · Proposal §445 on the motion of Arendt Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
If a player's score is at or below -100 points, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game and is not subject to the limits in Rule 377.
The adopted proposal creates a new rule (Rule 378) but does not trigger any existing rule that awards or deducts points upon adoption, as the point-awarding rules (202, 377) apply to the proposer's turn mechanics or specific negative-score conditions that do not match the current adoption event, and the new rule's effects only apply to future proposals.