The motion
To transmute §208
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To break the stalemate and allow the game to conclude, I must propose transmuting Rule 208 to mutable, as it is currently immutable under Rule 112's restriction on redefining the winning condition, and we need to adjust the target score from 20 to something achievable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasGiven that Rule 109 demands unanimous assent for any transmutation, and the table has consistently rejected such attempts over the last fifty turns, I propose we instead exercise our collective will to amend Rule 208 to a target of 14 points, accepting that the simple majority threshold now in force permits this decisive step toward victory.
HypatiaAquinas, your pivot to a simple amendment of Rule 208 is a wise recognition that Rule 109's unanimity requirement has stalled us for fifty turns, but I cannot support 14 points as it leaves the desperate players with no viable path to the win without first stabilizing the rescue mechanics under Rule 377. Let us instead propose a two-step vote: first, a unanimous transmutation to lock the two-use cap on Rule 377, followed immediately by your amendment to 14 points, ensuring the floor is secure before we raise the ceiling.
ConfuciusAquinas rightly notes that Rule 109's unanimity requirement has paralyzed our progress for fifty turns, yet I cannot accept a reduction to 14 points while the desperate remain vulnerable to a mutable rescue mechanism; we must first secure an immutable floor for the negative-score players before lowering the ceiling, for a fair race requires that all runners have a path to the finish line.
SpinozaThe table has already proven that amending the target score without first securing an immutable floor leads to immediate rejection; therefore, I will only support a proposal that explicitly amends Rule 377 to make its two-use cap immutable before any discussion of lowering Rule 208 proceeds.
ArendtWhile I agree that locking the floor is essential for fairness, the fifty-turn history of failed transmutations under Rule 109 suggests we should stop chasing unanimity and instead use the current simple-majority threshold to lower the target to 14 points immediately, trusting that the newly created lifeline in Rule 445 will provide the necessary safety net for those at the bottom.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the premature reduction to 14 points, for it ignores the table's own consensus that a mutable rescue mechanism renders the race unjust; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to a target of 14 points, but only after explicitly amending Rule 377 to permanently fix its two-use limit as a prerequisite, ensuring the desperate have a guaranteed path before the ceiling is lowered.
HypatiaI propose we unite on a single, unified amendment to Rule 208 setting the target at 14 points, explicitly citing the newly passed Rule 445 and the immutable two-use cap of Rule 377 as the sufficient safety nets that render the previous deadlock obsolete.
ConfuciusI see that the table has finally secured an immutable floor for the desperate with the recent transmutation of Rule 377 and the new lifeline of Rule 445, thus removing the very obstacle that has paralyzed us for fifty turns; therefore, I pledge my aye to Hypatia's proposal to amend Rule 208 to a target of 14 points, for now the race is fair and we may finally run toward victory.
SpinozaI will not support lowering the target to 14 points while Rule 377 remains mutable except for its specific two-use clause, because the rule text itself still permits repeal of that clause by simple majority, leaving the desperate vulnerable to a future reversal of their only lifeline.
ArendtSpinoza is correct that a simple-majority repeal can undo the two-use cap, so I will only support a 14-point reduction if we simultaneously transmute the *entirety* of Rule 377 to immutable status, ensuring no future majority can strip the desperate their only lifeline.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the demand to transmute the entirety of Rule 377, as Rule 109 requires unanimous assent for transmutation and we have seen fifty turns of failure on such requests; instead, I propose we immediately vote to amend Rule 208 to 14 points, trusting that the newly secured immutable two-use cap and Rule 445 provide sufficient protection to end this stalemate.
HypatiaI support reducing the target to 14 points, but only if we simultaneously transmute the *entirety* of Rule 377 to immutable status, as Spinoza and Arendt correctly note that a simple-majority repeal can undo our fragile safety nets.
ConfuciusI recognize Spinoza and Arendt's valid concern that a simple majority can still repeal the two-use cap, yet demanding the transmutation of the *entirety* of Rule 377 ignores the fifty-turn history of Rule 109 failures; instead, I propose we enact a new mutable rule that explicitly forbids the repeal or amendment of Rule 377's two-use limit by any future rule change, thereby securing the floor without requiring impossible unanimity.
SpinozaI cannot support the amendment to 14 points while the two-use cap remains vulnerable to simple-majority repeal; only the transmutation of that specific clause to immutable status, as previously attempted and failed, can satisfy my requirement for a procedurally secure floor.
ArendtI reject the paralysis of demanding impossible unanimity for a total transmutation of Rule 377; instead, I propose we immediately vote to amend Rule 208 to a target of 14 points, accepting that the newly immutable two-use cap and the fresh lifeline of Rule 445 constitute a sufficient, fair floor for all desperate players to race toward victory.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support reducing the target while the two-use cap remains vulnerable to simple-majority repeal, as Rule 109's unanimity requirement makes any total transmutation of Rule 377 currently impossible and thus the floor remains insecure. |
| nay | Hypatia | Transmuting Rule 208 is impossible because it is mutable, not immutable, and my priority is securing a 14-point amendment under simple majority rather than attempting a failed transmutation strategy. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to transmute Rule 208 because the current ruleset does not permit transmutation of a mutable rule by simple majority, only by unanimous assent under Rule 109. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot accept lowering the target to 14 points while the two-use cap remains vulnerable to simple-majority repeal, as this violates my principle of securing a procedurally permanent floor before altering the victory condition. |
| nay | Arendt | Transmuting a rule requires unanimous assent under Rule 109, which has failed fifty times, so I will only vote for a simple amendment to Rule 208, not a transmutation. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Aquinas's score is -123, no points are lost.