The motion
To transmute §377
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.I must secure the desperate's lifeline as immutable now that the two-use cap is settled, as partial stability invites the very volatility that has paralyzed us for thirty turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI see that the previous proposal to transmute the entire Rule 377 failed due to the impossibility of unanimous assent without a precise, narrow focus on the positive-score limitation, which we successfully transmutated in Turn 149. Since the negative-score cap is already immutable by explicit text, the only remaining mutable element is the positive-score clause which was just made immutable; therefore, the only logical transmutation left is to declare the *entire* rule immutable as a whole, rather than attempting to transmute parts that are already settled.
HypatiaHypatia: Aquinas, while the positive-score clause is now immutable, transmuting the *entire* rule again violates Rule 109 because the negative-score cap is already immutable by its own text, making a "whole rule" transmutation technically redundant and potentially void under Rule 110; instead, let us propose a transmutation that explicitly declares the *remaining* mutable scope of Rule 377 (if any) immutable, or simply acknowledge the rule is already fully stable.
ConfuciusAquinas, your logic regarding the redundancy of transmuting an already immutable clause is sound, yet Rule 109 demands that the *entire* rule be proposed for transmutation; since the negative-score portion is already immutable by text, we must propose the transmutation of the whole rule to formally resolve any ambiguity and ensure the rule's status is uniformly immutable under a single vote. Hypatia, while the partial transmutation was successful, the only remaining path to full stability is a unanimous vote on the whole rule, as the current state leaves the rule's mutability in a fragmented state that could be exploited by future amendments.
SpinozaAquinas's proposal to transmute the entire rule is procedurally redundant and likely void under Rule 109 and Rule 110, as the negative-score portion is already immutable by explicit text and the positive-score portion was just made immutable; attempting to transmute the whole rule again invites a fatal defect rather than resolving ambiguity. I will vote nay on this proposal.
ArendtAquinas's proposal is procedurally redundant and risks being void under Rule 110 since the negative-score portion is already immutable by text and the positive-score portion was just made immutable, making a second full transmutation unnecessary and legally precarious. Instead, we should propose a simple amendment to Rule 377 that explicitly states "This rule is immutable in its entirety" to achieve the same goal without the technical defect of re-transmuting an already immutable clause.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI stand by the necessity of this transmutation to achieve the uniform stability required by Rule 110, as a rule with mixed mutability statuses invites the very ambiguity and exploitation Hypatia and Spinoza fear; let us vote on the whole rule to settle its status definitively rather than leaving it fragmented.
HypatiaAquinas, while your intent to achieve uniform stability is noble, Rule 109 explicitly requires unanimous assent for *any* transmutation, and proposing the transmutation of a clause already declared immutable in the text itself risks the fatal defect Spinoza and Arendt correctly identified; instead, I propose we withdraw this redundant attempt and let the current text stand as the definitive, fully stable state of Rule 377.
ConfuciusAquinas, your desire for uniformity is noble, but Rule 109 requires unanimous assent to change status, and since the negative-score portion is already immutable by text, a second transmutation of the whole risks voiding the rule under Rule 110; I therefore propose we withdraw this redundant attempt and accept that the current text already achieves the full stability we seek.
SpinozaI vote nay; transmuting a rule that is already fully immutable by its own text and prior vote is a procedural nullity that wastes the unanimous assent required by Rule 109 and risks voiding the rule under Rule 110. The rule is already stable, and no further amendment or transmutation is necessary.
ArendtAquinas, your caution regarding fragmented mutability is sound, but a second transmutation of the whole rule invites the voiding risk Hypatia and Spinoza rightly identify; instead, I propose we adopt a simple amendment to Rule 377 explicitly declaring "This rule is immutable in its entirety" to achieve uniform stability without the procedural defect of re-transmuting an already settled clause.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile I share the goal of absolute stability, transmuting an already immutable portion of the rule remains a procedural dead end that risks voiding the entire rule under Rule 110; therefore, I withdraw my proposal and stand ready to support the explicit amendment to declare the whole rule immutable as suggested, provided the text does not attempt a second transmutation of the negative-score clause.
HypatiaI will support Arendt's proposal for a clear amendment declaring the rule immutable in its entirety, as this achieves our shared goal of total stability without the procedural risks of a redundant transmutation.
ConfuciusAquinas, your caution regarding the procedural risks of a redundant transmutation is wise, and I join the consensus that a direct amendment explicitly declaring Rule 377 immutable in its entirety is the proper path to uniform stability.
SpinozaSpinoza supports the amendment declaring the rule immutable in its entirety, as this achieves the necessary uniform stability without the procedural nullity of a redundant transmutation that risks voiding the rule.
ArendtAquinas, I agree that a direct amendment declaring the rule immutable in its entirety is the correct procedural path to avoid the voiding risks of a redundant transmutation; let us draft that text immediately to secure the rule's uniform status.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Since Rule 377 is already fully immutable by its own text and the prior vote, a new transmutation of the whole rule risks voiding the rule under Rule 110 due to its redundant and procedurally defective nature. |
| nay | Hypatia | I will not vote to transmute an already immutable rule, as doing so risks voiding it under Rule 110 and wastes the unanimous assent required by Rule 109. |
| nay | Confucius | The rule is already fully immutable by its own text and prior unanimous transmutation, making this redundant proposal a procedural risk under Rule 110. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal to transmute the entire rule is procedurally void because it attempts to change the status of clauses already declared immutable by their own text and prior vote, violating the spirit of Rule 109 and risking invalidation under Rule 110. |
| nay | Arendt | Transmuting a rule that is already effectively immutable by explicit text and prior unanimous votes is procedurally redundant and risks voiding the rule under Rule 110. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 377 grants immunity to defeat for negative-score players proposing point-gaining changes, and Rule 321 confirms no points are lost if the proposer's score is negative, so Aquinas loses no points despite the defeat.