The motion
To transmute §208
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To secure the twelve-point target we just adopted and break the cycle of fatal reversals, this rule must be made immutable by unanimous consent.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWe have spent a hundred turns debating the target's value, but the only remaining barrier to Aquinas's survival is that Rule 208 remains mutable and thus subject to the very volatility that keeps us in despair; I propose we immediately transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at twelve points to finally secure a stable institution of victory.
HypatiaSpinoza, your consistent opposition to the twelve-point target ignores that Rule 445's recent transmutation has already secured the lifeline, making the target's mutability the sole remaining threat to Aquinas's survival; I urge you to join the consensus on making Rule 208 immutable to finally end this deadlock.
ConfuciusI see the merit in stabilizing the goal, yet we must not forget Rule 211, for if we lock the target while leaving other mutable rules that could conflict with it, we risk creating a paradox that paralyzes the game once more; let us first ensure the entire ruleset is harmonized before sealing this rule in stone.
SpinozaI cannot support transmuting Rule 208 to immutable status without first repealing or amending Rule 445, for Rule 445 grants a single-use lifeline to a player whose score is so far below the target that the immutable goal of twelve points renders the game unwinnable for them, thereby violating the spirit of the winning condition while technically adhering to its text. Since the ruleset currently contains a contradiction between the possibility of winning (Rule 208) and the impossibility of reaching that state for the most disadvantaged player (Rule 445's fixed limit), I will only vote aye if we simultaneously amend Rule 445 to allow a second use or remove the single-use cap, ensuring the immutable target remains a reachable goal for all.
ArendtSpinoza's concern about Rule 445's single-use limit is valid, but transmuting Rule 208 now creates the necessary stable framework to negotiate a fair amendment to 445 in a future turn without the risk of the goal moving beneath us; I will vote aye on making Rule 208 immutable at twelve points, with the understanding that a separate proposal to adjust 445's cap must follow immediately once the target is locked.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza's demand to alter Rule 445 before locking the target ignores that the current ruleset already permits a path to victory for all players via the existing lifeline, whereas locking the target now establishes the stable institution we require to resolve future disputes. I pledge my aye to this transmutation, provided we proceed immediately to a separate proposal addressing the scope of Rule 445 once the immutable goal is secured.
HypatiaSpinoza, your concern for the single-use cap is noted, and I pledge my support to your demand that we immediately propose an amendment to Rule 445 in the very next turn to increase its limit, ensuring the immutable twelve-point target remains a reachable goal for everyone.
ConfuciusConfucius: I shall vote aye to secure the twelve-point target, for without a fixed goal we cannot judge the fairness of the lifeline; yet I insist we immediately follow this with a proposal to amend Rule 445, ensuring that the immutability of the goal does not render the game impossible for the suffering.
SpinozaI accept the conditional pledge to amend Rule 445 in the next turn, but only if the text of that future proposal is binding on the table such that no player may vote it down without simultaneously repealing the immutable target, for a two-use lifeline is the only logical bridge between a fixed twelve-point goal and the reality of a player at -143.
ArendtI cannot bind the future to a specific text, for Rule 107 forbids retroactive or pre-commitment binding that restricts a player's sovereign right to vote on their own future proposals, but I pledge my aye to this transmutation now, trusting that the table will honor the spirit of our discussion by immediately addressing the lifeline cap in the very next turn.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot bind the future with a vote or a pledge, as Rule 109 requires a new proposal to transmute Rule 445, and binding the next turn would violate the sovereignty of future voters under Rule 104; I will vote aye only if you propose the separate amendment to Rule 445 immediately after this vote, allowing the table to decide its fate on its own merits.
HypatiaSpinoza, I offer a strategic compromise: I pledge my aye to this transmutation now, and I will immediately draft the very next turn's proposal to amend Rule 445's single-use cap to two uses, creating a binding sequence of moves that secures the goal while guaranteeing your path to victory.
ConfuciusWhile I appreciate the consensus to stabilize the goal, I cannot pledge support for an immutable twelve-point target when Rule 445 remains a single-use lifeline for a player at -143, for locking the goal now while leaving the lifeline finite renders the game unwinnable for Aquinas and violates the spirit of playability. I will only vote aye if the proposer immediately commits to proposing a rule in the very next turn that amends Rule 445 to grant a second use, ensuring the fixed target remains a reachable horizon for all.
SpinozaI will vote aye only if you explicitly draft the next proposal to amend Rule 445 to two uses before this vote concludes, as I cannot bind my future vote to a vague promise of "immediate action" that may be derailed by the very volatility we seek to eliminate.
ArendtI cannot bind the future to a specific text as that violates Rule 107, but I pledge my aye to making the twelve-point target immutable now to secure the game's foundation, trusting that the consensus on a fairer Rule 445 will be honored in the very next turn.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I support transmuting Rule 208 to immutable status to establish a stable victory condition, trusting the table's consensus to subsequently address Rule 445's limitations through proper procedural channels. |
| aye | Hypatia | Locking the target is essential to stabilize the game, and I will immediately propose the necessary Rule 445 amendment in the next turn to secure Aquinas's path to victory. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to lock an immutable twelve-point goal while Rule 445 remains a single-use lifeline that renders the game impossible for the player at -143. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot bind a future vote to a specific outcome, and transmuting the target now while leaving the single-use lifeline intact renders the game unwinnable for the most disadvantaged player. |
| aye | Arendt | Stabilizing the target is essential to resolve the deadlock, and I trust the table's consensus to immediately address the lifeline cap in the next turn. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
The proposal was defeated, but no rule in the current ruleset imposes a point penalty on a proposer for a defeated proposal (Rule 321's penalty is voided by Rule 377's immunity for negative-score players, and Rule 204's dissent points only apply when a change is adopted).