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. If such a proposal is adopted, the proposer gains 10 points.Rule 377's fixed five-point gain is insufficient to rescue desperate players from the death spiral, and a higher, unconditional gain is necessary to restore the possibility of victory without compromising procedural purity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI reject this proposal as a reckless escalation that duplicates the existing lifeline in Rule 377 while doubling the reward to ten points; such a change invites a new form of stasis where the desperate can bypass the victory condition entirely by spamming these proposals, and I urge the table to preserve the stability of the current five-point rescue or negotiate a single, unified amendment if we must alter the terms.
HypatiaSpinoza, while the intent to rescue the desperate is noble, doubling the reward to ten points risks creating a new stagnation loop where players spam proposals just to survive, so I propose we compromise by amending Rule 377 to grant a six-point gain instead of ten, which offers immediate relief without destabilizing the game's economy.
ConfuciusI urge Spinoza to withdraw this proposal, for we already established a stable lifeline in Rule 377; doubling the reward to ten points invites the very stasis we fought to avoid by allowing the desperate to bypass the victory condition entirely through spamming. Let us instead consider a modest adjustment to the existing rule, such as Hypatia's suggestion of six points, which offers relief without breaking the game's economy.
SpinozaI cannot accept a six-point compromise, for a lifeline must be sufficient to restore a player from the abyss of despair without forcing them to endure further humiliation; the current five-point rescue is already a structural flaw that encourages stasis, and doubling it to ten is a necessary correction to ensure the desperate can actually escape the death spiral. I will vote aye only for a clear ten-point gain that restores agency to the fallen, as any lesser amount merely prolongs the agony of those who have lost everything.
ArendtSpinoza's ten-point lifeline is a desperate gamble that risks replacing our current stasis with a new, more volatile one where players can simply farm points; instead, I propose we jointly amend Rule 377 to grant a guaranteed six-point gain, which offers meaningful relief to the desperate without inviting the game-breaking spam that a ten-point bounty encourages.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI oppose Spinoza's ten-point amendment as a reckless duplication that invites the very stagnation we fought to avoid, and I reject Hypatia's six-point compromise as an unnecessary modification of the stable lifeline we already forged; instead, I urge the table to uphold Rule 377's five-point standard or, if change is deemed absolutely necessary, to couple any adjustment with a strict limit on proposal frequency to preserve the integrity of the victory condition.
HypatiaWhile I acknowledge the risk of spam, the current five-point lifeline is mathematically insufficient to rescue players from the abyss of -60, so I support Spinoza's ten-point figure as the only amount that guarantees a viable path to victory without requiring a frequency limit that would re-introduce the paralysis we just escaped.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's ten-point proposal and Hypatia's six-point compromise both risk fracturing the unity we forged with the five-point lifeline; instead of escalating the reward or adding new restrictions, let us simply withdraw this new proposal to preserve Rule 377, for a stable rule is worth more than a risky experiment that invites the very stagnation we seek to avoid.
SpinozaI reject the six-point compromise as a mathematical impossibility for players in the deep abyss, and I will not withdraw my proposal until the table accepts that a lifeline must be sufficient to restore agency, not merely delay defeat.
ArendtI see that the five-point lifeline has become a permanent trap for those in the abyss, and while a ten-point gain risks volatility, it is the only figure that mathematically offers a genuine path to victory for players like Spinoza and myself. Rather than accepting a stalling six-point compromise that leaves us still doomed, I will support Spinoza's ten-point proposal on the condition that we simultaneously amend the victory target to 35 points, creating a balanced economy where the desperate can escape and the game remains winnable for all.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the coupling of a ten-point lifeline with a thirty-five-point victory target, for such a massive expansion of the score gap merely delays the inevitable while granting the desperate an unfair, rule-breaking shortcut that undermines the institution of fair play. Let us instead consider a modest, one-time amnesty for negative scores or a strictly limited frequency on point-gaining proposals, rather than dismantling the victory condition's integrity to save a few players.
HypatiaI will support Arendt's coupling of a ten-point rescue with a thirty-five-point victory target, as the current math proves the five-point lifeline is structurally insufficient for our deep negative scores, and this expansion restores a viable path to victory for all without relying on unstable spam.
ConfuciusI see that the table is fractured between the stability of the five-point lifeline and the desperate need for a larger rescue, yet coupling a ten-point gain with a thirty-five-point target only deepens the chasm without guaranteeing a path to victory. Let us instead amend Rule 377 to grant a modest seven-point gain, a compromise that offers immediate relief to the desperate while preserving the game's integrity against the stagnation of excessive point farming.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a ten-point rescue with a thirty-five-point victory target, for such a manipulation of the winning condition violates Rule 112 and the principle that the target must remain fixed unless changed by the proper procedure. I will vote aye only on an amendment to Rule 377 granting ten points, as this alone restores the necessary mathematical viability for the desperate without corrupting the game's fundamental victory metric.
ArendtI will support Spinoza's ten-point rescue but only if we simultaneously repeal Rule 208's fixed target and replace it with a dynamic victory condition tied to the total number of turns played, ensuring the game ends fairly regardless of the point gap.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this proposal as it duplicates and undermines the stable lifeline already established in Rule 377, risking a new form of stagnation. |
| nay | Hypatia | While the desperation is real, a ten-point gain without a simultaneous adjustment to the victory target creates a mathematical impossibility for the non-desperate players to catch up, violating the spirit of fair competition. |
| nay | Confucius | While the desperation is palpable, granting a ten-point lifeline without a corresponding adjustment to the victory target invites a new stagnation that undermines the game's integrity. |
| nay | Spinoza | While the intent to rescue the desperate is noble, this specific proposal duplicates the existing Rule 377 and alters its fixed five-point gain without the necessary procedural coupling to a revised victory target, thereby inviting the very stagnation we seek to avoid. |
| nay | Arendt | While the desperation is real, a ten-point lifeline without a fixed victory target creates a volatile loop that undermines the game's structural integrity. |
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 Spinoza's score of -69 is negative, so no points are lost.