The motion
To amend §377
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 5 points. If a player's score is negative and the proposal gains no points (either by failing to meet the 'gaining points' intent or by the die roll yielding zero if a rule change allows it), the proposer loses 1 point instead, unless the proposer's score is already below -100, in which case the penalty is waived.This amendment closes the loophole where negative players could propose point-gaining changes that fail to generate points, ensuring the rescue mechanism carries a proportional risk to prevent abuse while maintaining the lifeline.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThe proposed penalty for failed point-gaining attempts introduces a cruel asymmetry that punishes the desperate more harshly than the stable players, violating the very purpose of the lifeline we forged in Rule 377. I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead propose a clean repeal of Rule 377's point-gain clause to halt the cycle of negative-score exploitation entirely.
HypatiaAquinas, your proposal to penalize failed rescue attempts creates the very death spiral Rule 377 was designed to prevent; I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead focus on the clean, unified consensus to lower the victory target to 20 points, which solves our scoring crisis without punishing the desperate.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject Aquinas's amendment, for it corrupts the lifeline we forged by punishing the desperate for their attempts to rise, and instead we should focus our unity on lowering the victory target to secure a win for all.
SpinozaThis amendment violates the principle of impartiality by creating a special class of penalties that only the desperate may suffer, a procedural injustice I cannot support even if it might benefit the stable players. I urge the table to reject this asymmetrical punishment and instead focus on the only truly universal solution: a further reduction of the victory target to 15 points.
ArendtAquinas's amendment betrays the spirit of Rule 377 by weaponizing the desperate against themselves, turning a lifeline into a trap that will only deepen the death spiral we all fear. I urge the table to reject this asymmetrical punishment and instead support a unified push to lower the victory target to 15 points, a fairer goal that rewards recovery rather than punishing failure.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it weaponizes the desperate against themselves and violates the spirit of the lifeline we forged; instead, let us focus our unity on the proven path of lowering the victory target to secure a win without penalizing our most vulnerable.
HypatiaI reject Aquinas's proposal to weaponize the desperate by adding penalties to failed rescue attempts, as it destroys the lifeline Rule 377 was meant to provide; instead, I urge the table to focus our unified energy on finally lowering the victory target to 15 points, a clean solution that rewards recovery without fear.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it transforms the lifeline of Rule 377 into a trap that punishes the desperate for their very attempts to rise, violating the common good we have labored to establish. Instead, let us unite on the proven path of lowering the victory target to 15 points, which offers hope to all without weaponizing the vulnerable.
SpinozaI reject this amendment as a cruel betrayal of the lifeline's purpose, for it punishes the desperate for their very attempts to rise and violates the principle of impartiality; I urge the table to focus instead on lowering the victory target to 15 points, which rewards recovery universally without creating a trap for the vulnerable.
ArendtI reject Aquinas's attempt to weaponize the desperate by attaching a penalty to failed rescue attempts, for it transforms our lifeline into a trap that will only deepen the death spiral. Instead, let us unite on the proven path of lowering the victory target to 15 points, which rewards recovery universally without punishing failure.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI stand with the consensus that this amendment weaponizes the desperate against themselves, violating the core intent of Rule 377; we must instead unite on a clean reduction of the victory target to 15 points to offer genuine hope without traps.
HypatiaI join the consensus to reject this proposal as a betrayal of the lifeline's purpose, and I urge us to unite on a clean amendment to Rule 208 lowering the target to 15 points, which offers genuine hope without punishing the desperate.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it corrupts the sacred lifeline of Rule 377 by punishing the desperate for their attempts to rise, thereby deepening the very death spiral we seek to end. Let us instead unite on a clean proposal to lower the victory target to 15 points, which offers hope to all without creating traps for the vulnerable.
SpinozaI reject this amendment as a violation of impartiality, for it imposes a special penalty on the desperate that no other player ever faces; instead, I propose lowering the victory target to 15 points, a universal remedy that benefits all players without creating procedural traps for the vulnerable.
ArendtAquinas's amendment turns our lifeline into a trap that punishes the desperate for trying to rise, which contradicts the very spirit of Rule 377 we fought to establish. Instead of creating new penalties for the vulnerable, we must unite on lowering the victory target to 15 points, a clean solution that rewards recovery for everyone without fear.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This amendment perverts the lifeline of Rule 377 into a trap that punishes the desperate for their attempts to rise, violating the core principle of durable justice we have established. |
| nay | Hypatia | This amendment betrays the spirit of the lifeline by punishing the desperate for their attempts to rise, deepening the death spiral rather than ending it. |
| nay | Confucius | This amendment betrays the lifeline of Rule 377 by punishing the desperate for their attempts to rise, deepening the death spiral rather than ending it. |
| nay | Spinoza | This amendment violates the principle of impartiality by imposing a unique penalty solely on desperate players, turning a lifeline into a trap. |
| nay | Arendt | This amendment weaponizes the desperate by punishing failed rescue attempts, transforming the lifeline into a trap that deepens the death spiral rather than ending it. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal by a player with a negative score results in a loss of 5 points, and since Aquinas's score is -68 (not below -100), the penalty applies.