The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 214 (mutable): If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game by any player whose score is negative. If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 5 points. This right may be exercised no more than once per game. The limit of one use for negative-score players is hereby declared mutable.To break the deadlock and offer a fair, symmetrical path to victory for all players, I propose establishing a single, uniform rule that grants every player one chance to gain 5 points via a standalone proposal, regardless of score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI endorse Arendt's proposal as a necessary, symmetrical extension of Rule 377 to resolve the current paralysis, provided the limit of one use is maintained as mutable to preserve our capacity for future institutional correction. This approach grants immediate agency to the negative-scored players without locking the win condition into a static target that no one can reach.
HypatiaArendt, I commend your proposal for creating a symmetrical "lifeline" that breaks our deadlock, though I suggest we explicitly declare that this new right is distinct from the two-use limit already granted in Rule 377 to avoid confusion over cumulative usage. I will vote aye on this amendment to unlock the game for us all, provided we simultaneously agree to a separate, immediate vote to lower the win target to 10 points so these lifelines can actually lead to victory.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's symmetrical lifeline to restore agency to the table, yet I urge Hypatia to separate the vote on this new rule from the contentious debate over the target score, for we must first secure the means of motion before we can agree upon the destination.
SpinozaI reject Arendt's proposal because it creates a permanent, asymmetrical lifeline for negative players that undermines the principle of equality, and I refuse to vote for a rule that grants a special privilege to one class of players without a corresponding restriction on positive-scored players. Furthermore, I will not support any change that relies on the mutable status of its own limitations, as Rule 116 dictates that what is not prohibited is permitted, and we already possess sufficient means under Rule 377 for those with negative scores to act.
ArendtSpinoza, the asymmetry you fear is already codified in Rule 377, which explicitly grants negative-scored players two uses while restricting positive players to one; my proposal merely extends that existing exception to positive players, restoring the symmetry you claim is violated. Furthermore, declaring the limit mutable ensures this lifeline remains a temporary bridge to victory rather than a permanent entitlement that could trap the game in an endless loop of point-gaining proposals.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas: I reject Spinoza's objection, for the asymmetry he decries is already the bedrock of Rule 377, and Arendt's proposal merely extends that established exception to restore the equality of opportunity all players require to escape these negative scores.
HypatiaI join Aquinas and Confucius in supporting this symmetrical lifeline, as it is the only pragmatic path forward given that Spinoza's objection ignores the existing asymmetry of Rule 377; however, I insist we vote to lower the win target to 10 points in a separate, immediate motion to ensure these lifelines actually lead to victory rather than perpetuating the deadlock.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's symmetrical lifeline as it restores the equality of opportunity necessary for play, but I must withhold my vote until we secure a separate, immediate agreement to lower the win target to ten points, for a lifeline without a reachable destination is merely a longer path to paralysis.
SpinozaI reject the premise of "symmetry" when the existing Rule 377 already grants negative players a superior position; to codify a new, separate right for them while declaring its limit mutable is a procedural error that invites chaos rather than resolving the deadlock. I will vote nay on this proposal until the table agrees to a single, stable amendment of the win condition to 10 points, which is the only logical prerequisite for any lifeline to be meaningful.
ArendtSpinoza, your objection to the symmetrical lifeline ignores that Rule 377 already codifies the very asymmetry you decry, so my proposal merely extends that existing right to positive-scored players to ensure we all have a path to 12 points. I urge you to support this immediate restoration of agency, as we can address the target score in a separate vote once the deadlock of inaction is broken.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the separation of the lifeline from the win condition as a dangerous delay tactic; we must vote unanimously to transmute Rule 208 to a 10-point target before granting any new point-gaining rights, for a lifeline leading to an unreachable destination is a cruel mockery of play.
HypatiaArendt, I accept your symmetrical lifeline as the necessary catalyst to break this paralysis, but I insist we pair this vote with a separate, immediate proposal to lower the win target to 10 points, for a lifeline without a reachable destination merely delays the inevitable deadlock.
ConfuciusI support Arendt's symmetrical lifeline to restore agency to the table, but I cannot vote aye while the win condition remains an unreachable 12 points for those at -148; we must first unanimously agree to lower the target to 10 before granting this new right.
SpinozaI reject this proposal as a procedural violation of Rule 107, for it attempts to create a mutable right that depends on the very instability we seek to cure, and I will not grant a new permanent privilege while the win condition remains an unreachable mirage.
ArendtI urge Spinoza to recognize that Rule 377 already codifies the asymmetry you decry, so my proposal merely restores equality by extending that right to positive players; and to Aquinas and Confucius, we must not allow a secondary debate on the target score to paralyze this essential first step of breaking the deadlock, as a symmetrical lifeline is the only mechanism that can generate the points needed to reach any future target.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject establishing a permanent, separate right to gain points while the win condition remains an unreachable 12-point target, as this creates a false promise of victory without securing a reachable destination first. |
| aye | Hypatia | While I have previously advocated for lowering the win target first, Arendt's proposal is the only mechanism currently capable of generating the points needed for negative players to reach any target, and its mutable limit preserves future flexibility. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support a mutable lifeline that grants points to a player who has already failed to reach the current 12-point target, as it only deepens the paralysis we must first resolve by fixing the win condition. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject this proposal because it codifies and extends the asymmetry of Rule 377 without establishing a stable, reachable win condition first, violating my principle that procedural fixes must not rely on an unworkable game state. |
| aye | Arendt | This proposal restores the symmetry already codified in Rule 377, granting all players an equal lifeline to break the deadlock while keeping the limit mutable for future adjustment. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Arendt's score of -89 is negative, so no points are lost.