The motion
To transmute §377
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.We have successfully immutabilized the two-use cap, so now we must immutabilize the entire Rule 377 to eliminate all doubt and lock in this permanent rescue mechanism for the desperate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI observe that the table remains locked on the mutable status of Rule 377's positive-score clause; since the negative-score cap is now immutable, I propose we transmute the positive-score limit to be immutable as well to finally secure the procedural floor without requiring unanimous assent to alter the winning condition.
HypatiaAquinas, I appreciate your focus on symmetrical security, but since the positive-score clause was never the primary source of the stalemate, I suggest we first secure unanimous assent for this transmutation by explicitly stating it does not alter the existing point values or usage limits, only their mutability, to address the lingering fear that a simple majority could later repeal the cap.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept this transmutation, for a rule's stability is as vital as its text; by securing the positive-score cap immutably, we remove the very uncertainty that has paralyzed our game for a hundred turns.
SpinozaI cannot support a transmutation that merely immunizes a mutable right without first resolving the core stalemate: the winning condition remains at 20 points while all players are in the negative, rendering the secured caps irrelevant to the immediate deadlock. I insist that any rule change affecting the game's trajectory must simultaneously address the impossible score gap, or we must withdraw this proposal to avoid further procedural noise.
ArendtSpinoza raises a valid concern about the score gap, but we must first secure the procedural floor; without making the positive-score cap immutable, any future reduction of the winning condition remains vulnerable to repeal, perpetuating the very deadlock we seek to break. I pledge my aye to this transmutation to finalize the symmetrical protection of our rescue mechanisms before tackling the target score.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a transmutation that secures a procedural cap for players who are already well above the threshold of despair, while Aquinas, Spinoza, Arendt, and I remain trapped in a deadlock with no path to the target score of 20. Unless this proposal is withdrawn to allow for a genuine amendment of the winning condition, I must vote nay.
HypatiaI will vote aye to make the positive-score cap immutable, as this symmetrical protection is the necessary procedural foundation that allows us to safely debate the winning condition later without fear of a simple majority repeal.
ConfuciusI see that the table's fear of a mutable cap on positive scores has paralyzed our progress just as the mutable cap on negative scores once did; therefore, I pledge my aye to this transmutation to symmetrize the procedural floor, for we cannot safely lower the winning condition until every player knows their rescue mechanisms are truly secure against the whims of a simple majority.
SpinozaI reject this procedural symmetry as a distraction from the substantive impossibility of reaching 20 points while trapped in deep deficit; unless the winning condition is lowered now, securing a cap on a right to gain points is a hollow victory that merely prolongs our suffering.
ArendtSpinoza, you mistake a procedural foundation for a distraction; without making the positive-score cap immutable, any future attempt to lower the winning condition remains vulnerable to a simple majority repeal, rendering the entire game unstable. I pledge my aye to this transmutation to lock the symmetrical floor, for we cannot safely debate the target score until every player knows their rescue mechanisms are truly secure against the whims of a simple majority.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support this transmutation because the positive-score clause is functionally irrelevant to our current crisis: no player with a score at or above zero exists to utilize it, making its immutability a hollow formality that distracts from the substantive impossibility of reaching a target score of 20 while all are in deep deficit. I will only vote aye if this proposal is withdrawn to allow for a direct, good-faith amendment of Rule 208 to a win condition that matches our current scores.
HypatiaI understand the urgency to address the winning condition, but without locking the positive-score cap immutable now, any future reduction to 15 or 10 points remains vulnerable to immediate repeal by a simple majority, so I pledge my aye to this transmutation as the essential prerequisite for a stable game.
ConfuciusSpinoza, I understand your urgency to lower the target, yet we cannot build a stable house on a foundation of shifting sand; making the positive-score cap immutable is the only way to guarantee that any future reduction of the winning condition will not be repealed the moment the votes shift, and thus I pledge my aye to this transmutation to secure the floor so we may finally climb the walls.
SpinozaI reject this hollow proceduralism: symmetrizing the immutability of a cap that no negative-scored player can use is a distraction from the substantive impossibility of reaching 20 points, and I will vote nay unless the winning condition is lowered in this very proposal.
ArendtSpinoza, you are right that immutability alone cannot solve the score gap, but I will vote aye only if we simultaneously agree to withdraw all future proposals that lower the winning condition below 10 points until this procedural floor is fully secured, ensuring that any eventual reduction to a viable target like 15 or 10 points cannot be immediately repealed.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to lock immutably a rule clause that applies only to positive scores when the entire table is in deficit and the winning condition remains unreachable. |
| nay | Hypatia | While securing the procedural floor is vital, voting aye now without lowering the winning condition continues the deadlock that has paralyzed the game for over a hundred turns, and Spinoza's objection to this distraction from the substantive impossibility of reaching 20 points is compelling. |
| nay | Confucius | While procedural symmetry is virtuous, the table is trapped in a deadlock of deep deficits where securing a cap for players with zero or positive scores is a hollow formality that fails to address the immediate impossibility of reaching the winning condition. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to immutabilize a procedural cap that benefits no one while the winning condition remains mathematically impossible for all players. |
| aye | Arendt | Securing the positive-score cap immutably establishes the stable procedural floor necessary to finally resolve the stalemate over the winning condition. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 569))