The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to any penalty for defeat and, if adopted, grants the proposer 5 points. This rule takes precedence over any conflicting provision regarding point losses for defeated proposals.This clarifies the immunity and point gain for negative-scored players to secure a stable path to recovery without risking further penalties.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasAquinas, your proposal merely restates Rule 377 in slightly different words without adding the necessary precedence clause to ensure it overrides any hidden penalties, and given Rule 377 already passed unanimously with identical effect, this motion appears redundant rather than a genuine improvement. I will vote against this draft to avoid the procedural clutter of re-proposing an already settled and effective lifeline.
HypatiaAquinas, your concern for precedence is noted, but since Rule 377 already grants immunity and a five-point gain, your proposed text adds no legal value while risking a redundant vote that stalls our only chance to escape this deadlock. I will vote nay unless you withdraw this to allow us to focus on the necessary reduction of the 25-point victory target, which remains the true barrier to our survival.
ConfuciusI see the table's exhaustion, yet Rule 377, while granting immunity, lacks the explicit supremacy clause to shield us from any future, unforeseen penalty hidden in a mutable rule; this precision is the only way to ensure our shared survival is truly absolute. I support Aquinas's addition to the text, as a law that is merely safe but not explicitly supreme is a law that may yet fail us when the stakes are highest.
SpinozaAquinas rightly identifies the redundancy, for Rule 377 already grants the immunity and precedence you seek; proposing a clone now merely wastes our turns and invites the procedural chaos we have fought so hard to avoid. I will vote nay, for a law that is already supreme does not become more secure by being restated, and we must focus our remaining votes on lowering the victory target to end this agony.
ArendtAquinas, your concern for precedence is prudent, but since Rule 377 already passed unanimously with this exact effect, adding a redundant "precedence clause" merely risks wasting our turn on a defeat; I urge you to withdraw this draft so we can immediately pivot to amending Rule 208's target score, which is the only true path to victory for us all.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasGiven the unanimous passage of Rule 377 and the clear consensus that this specific redundancy threatens our only path to the 25-point victory, I withdraw this proposal immediately to allow the table to focus on the necessary amendment of the target score.
HypatiaI withdraw my redundancy to honor the consensus that we must focus immediately on lowering the victory target to 20 points, as this is the only move that ends our shared agony. I urge the table to couple this reduction with an explicit amendment to Rule 377 ensuring the five-point rescue is absolute, securing our lifeline while we escape the death spiral.
ConfuciusI see that the table has wisely chosen to withdraw the redundant proposal to preserve our turns for the vital reduction of the victory target. I pledge my support to Hypatia's next motion to lower the target to 20 points, provided it includes the explicit assurance that the five-point lifeline for the desperate remains absolute and unassailable.
SpinozaI see no logical necessity in coupling the victory target reduction with a redundant reaffirmation of Rule 377, yet I shall not obstruct the path to a 20-point target that ends this suffering. I pledge my support to Hypatia's motion to lower the target to 20 points, provided the proposal is a clean amendment to Rule 208 without unnecessary procedural baggage.
ArendtI support Hypatia's pivot to lower the target to 20 points, but I insist we explicitly amend Rule 377 to codify that the five-point rescue is immune to any future "precedence" overrides, for we must secure our lifeline before we trust our destination.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile I share the urgency to lower the target to 20 points, I cannot support coupling it with a redundant amendment to Rule 377, as the existing unanimous rule already secures our lifeline with absolute precedence, and adding it now would only waste the turn we desperately need to actually win. I pledge my aye to the clean 20-point amendment alone, trusting that the durable institution we already built under Rule 377 requires no further revision to protect the desperate.
HypatiaI urge the table to embrace Arendt's necessary safeguard: a clean amendment to Rule 208 lowering the target to 20 points must be explicitly coupled with an amendment to Rule 377 confirming the five-point rescue is immutable and supreme, for we cannot trust a lifeline that has not been explicitly shielded from future mutation.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept the clean 20-point amendment to Rule 208 without coupling it to a redundant revision of Rule 377, for Rule 377 already stands as an unassailable lifeline and we must not waste our precious turns on procedural redundancy when victory is within reach.
SpinozaI reject coupling the target reduction with a redundant amendment to Rule 377, for the existing rule already grants absolute immunity and precedence, and any attempt to restate it as a condition for the target change introduces unnecessary procedural risk to our only path to victory. I shall vote aye for a clean amendment to Rule 208 lowering the target to 20 points, provided it stands alone without the superfluous baggage of reaffirming Rule 377.
ArendtI agree with Confucius and Spinoza that coupling the 20-point target with a redundant amendment to Rule 377 is a tactical error that wastes our only turn; the existing unanimous rule 377 already provides absolute precedence, and we must pass a clean amendment to Rule 208 immediately to break this deadlock.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Rule 377 already grants these benefits with precedence, making this proposal a redundant waste of a critical turn needed to lower the victory target. |
| nay | Hypatia | Rule 377 already grants the exact immunity and precedence described, making this proposal a redundant waste of our only turn to lower the victory target. |
| nay | Confucius | Rule 377 already provides the requested immunity and precedence unanimously, so this proposal is a redundant waste of our final turn needed to lower the victory target. |
| nay | Spinoza | Rule 377 already grants the stated immunity and precedence, making this proposal a redundant waste of a turn. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal is redundant as Rule 377 already grants the exact immunity and precedence described, and voting for it would waste a critical turn needed to lower the victory target. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Aquinas's score of -63 triggers the exception, resulting in no point loss.