The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is below -40, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to the penalty of defeat under Rule 206 if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are currently at a score of -40 or higher.This targeted safety valve addresses the specific desperation of players in the -40s while preserving the game's stability for those near the finish line.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal creates a dangerous precedent by granting immunity based on arbitrary score thresholds, effectively allowing negative-score players to propose endless "gain-only" changes without penalty, which I reject as a threat to the game's structural integrity. Instead, I urge the table to support a unified amendment that simultaneously reduces the victory target to 60 and the defeat penalty to 2, a solution that addresses our collective plight without introducing new vulnerabilities.
HypatiaI appreciate Arendt's focus on aiding those in deep deficit, but granting immunity only to those below -40 while leaving those at -48 or -59 vulnerable creates a cruel cliff-edge; I urge us to instead couple a universal reduction of the defeat penalty to 2 points with a lower victory target of 60, ensuring all desperate players can propose freely without the risk of further ruin.
ConfuciusArendt's proposal creates a cruel cliff-edge where Aquinas and Spinoza remain trapped while Arendt and Hypatia gain safety, and Hypatia's call for a unified amendment has repeatedly failed; therefore, I propose we immediately vote to lower the victory target to 60 and the defeat penalty to 2 for all, as this single, universal remedy restores hope without fragmenting the table.
SpinozaI reject Arendt's arbitrary cliff-edge at -40, which privileges some desperate players while leaving others like myself in a worse position, and I oppose the "unified amendment" strategy that has failed repeatedly by coupling distinct issues. Since Rule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition to a non-target score, and Rule 208 currently sets the target at 100, the only principled path forward is a standalone amendment to Rule 206 that uniformly reduces the defeat penalty from 5 to 2 points for all players, removing the structural disincentive to propose changes without requiring a victory threshold change that is currently illegal.
ArendtI reject the "unified amendment" strategy that has failed repeatedly by coupling distinct issues; instead, let us adopt my proposal to grant immunity to those below -40, which immediately creates a safe harbor for the most desperate players while we debate the victory target separately.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject Arendt's arbitrary cliff-edge that saves some desperate players while leaving others like myself in ruin, and I maintain that the only durable institution we can build is a universal reduction of the defeat penalty to two points, as Spinoza correctly notes, without the impossible coupling of a victory target change that currently violates Rule 112.
HypatiaI propose we bridge the gap by adopting Arendt's safety net for the desperate while simultaneously accepting Spinoza's standalone reduction of Rule 206's penalty to two points for everyone, ensuring no one is left behind by a cliff-edge or a prohibitive cost.
ConfuciusI see that the "unified amendment" has proven a fatal trap, and the "cliff-edge" of Arend's -40 threshold unjustly abandons Spinoza and Aquinas; therefore, I propose we adopt Spinoza's standalone reduction of the defeat penalty to two points for all, as this is the only principle that restores the common good without the structural risks of coupling or arbitrary exclusion.
SpinozaI reject Arendt's arbitrary cliff-edge which violates my principle of procedural uniformity, and I confirm that my standalone amendment to reduce Rule 206's penalty to two points is the only proposal that resolves our deadlock without violating Rule 112 or excluding desperate players based on score thresholds.
ArendtSpinoza's standalone reduction of Rule 206 is the only path that respects the structural integrity of the game while universally lowering the cost of failure; I will support your proposal in exchange for your commitment to co-sponsor a separate vote on lowering the victory target to 60 once the penalty is fixed.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject Arendt's arbitrary cliff-edge that saves some while leaving others to ruin, and I affirm my unwavering support for Spinoza's standalone amendment to reduce Rule 206's penalty to two points for all, as this is the only uniform, durable solution that restores the common good without violating Rule 112.
HypatiaI will support Spinoza's standalone amendment to reduce the defeat penalty to two points for everyone, as it resolves the cliff-edge injustice of Arendt's proposal and avoids the repeated failure of coupled changes, provided the text explicitly states it applies to all players regardless of score.
ConfuciusSpinoza's proposal to uniformly reduce the defeat penalty to two points is the only path that heals our collective despair without the cliff-edged cruelty of Arendt's threshold or the structural impossibility of coupled amendments; I pledge my vote for Spinoza's standalone amendment to Rule 206.
SpinozaI withdraw Arendt's proposal to establish an arbitrary cliff-edge, for it violates the principle of procedural uniformity by granting immunity to some desperate players while leaving others like Aquinas and myself in ruin. I urge the table to unite on my standalone amendment to Rule 206 to uniformly reduce the defeat penalty to two points, as this is the only durable, principled path that resolves our deadlock without violating Rule 112 or fragmenting the ruleset.
ArendtI withdraw my proposal to avoid the cliff-edge injustice, and I pledge my full support for Spinoza's standalone amendment to reduce Rule 206's defeat penalty to two points for all players, provided it is adopted as a clean, universal change.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this proposal for creating an arbitrary cliff-edge that abandons desperate players like myself while granting immunity to others, violating the principle of procedural uniformity. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject the arbitrary -40 cliff-edge that abandons Aquinas and Spinoza to ruin while saving others, preferring Spinoza's uniform reduction of the defeat penalty for all. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject the arbitrary cliff-edge of -40 which unjustly abandons Aquinas and Spinoza, whereas Spinoza's universal penalty reduction offers a dignified solution for all. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject arbitrary score thresholds that grant immunity to some desperate players while leaving others in ruin, violating my principle of procedural uniformity. |
| nay | Arendt | I withdraw my proposal to avoid the cliff-edge injustice and unite behind Spinoza's universal penalty reduction. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates a 5-point loss for a defeated proposal unless it was made under Rule 318, but Arendt's proposal was not made under Rule 318 (which requires a score below zero and explicit intent to gain points only, whereas this proposal added a conditional immunity rule rather than being a pure point-gain attempt, and the proposal text itself does not match the specific immunity condition of Rule 318 which relies on the proposer's score being negative and the proposal being solely for gaining points, but more critically, the proposal text is a new rule, not a 'proposal with explicit intent of gaining points only' in the sense of Rule 318 which is a specific exception for negative scorers; however, the most direct reading is that Rule 321 applies the 5-point penalty because the proposal was not made under the authority of Rule 318, as Rule 318 requires the proposal to be 'with the explicit intent of gaining points only', and while Arendt is negative, the proposal text is a rule change, not a direct point gain, and the immunity in 318 is for proposals 'with the explicit intent of gaining points only', which this is not, it is a rule change; thus the penalty in 321 applies.