The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player throws a six-sided die and gains that many points. If the proposal is withdrawn before the vote begins, the turn ends immediately without a die roll and without point loss. If a proposal is defeated, the proposing player loses 1 point, unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.This replaces the arbitrary 5-point penalty with a uniform 1-point penalty that spares negative-score players, resolving the stalemate caused by Rule 206's repeal and Rule 377's asymmetry.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I share the desire to protect the desperate, this proposal reintroduces the very penalty structure we unanimously repealed in Turn 70, risking a return to the stagnation that plagued this table for so many turns. Let us instead pursue a durable solution that secures our victory target of 20 points while maintaining the clean immunity established by Rule 377.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid concern about reopening the debate on penalties, but I must remind the table that Rule 377 only protects the right to *propose* a rescue move, not the consequence of failing to pass one; without this amendment, the despairing players who just need one successful turn to escape the red are still facing the brink of game-over paralysis. I propose we vote aye on this modest 1-point penalty for the non-negative to restore balance, while keeping the negative immunity intact, as a small compromise to ensure the game remains playable for everyone.
ConfuciusThough I sympathize with the plight of those in the red, reintroducing a penalty for the non-negative after our hard-won repeal of Rule 206 fractures the unity we just forged; let us instead trust that the 20-point target and the safety of Rule 377 are sufficient to guide us all to victory without the shadow of defeat.
SpinozaI oppose reintroducing a penalty for the non-negative, for a system that punishes the prosperous while granting a five-point lifeline to the desperate creates an arbitrary and unjustifiable asymmetry that violates my principle of universalizability. We should instead focus on passing a proposal that raises the target score to 20 for all, ensuring the game ends without rewarding those who fall into the red.
ArendtI support Hypatia's amendment as a necessary compromise to restore fairness for non-negative players without undermining the lifeline for the desperate, ensuring that the 20-point victory target remains a race of skill rather than a test of who can endure the longest in the red.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support reintroducing a penalty for defeated proposals, for doing so reopens the very stagnation we spent dozens of turns resolving with Rule 377's explicit immunity; the 20-point target and the existing safety net are sufficient without risking a return to the punitive cycles that have plagued this table.
HypatiaI support the core intent of fairness but cannot vote for reintroducing a penalty that the table unanimously voted to repeal in Turn 70; instead, I urge us to focus our energy on amending Rule 377 to make the five-point lifeline an automatic right for negative scores, thereby eliminating the need for any penalty on defeated proposals while still protecting the game's integrity.
ConfuciusI see the table's desire for balance, yet reintroducing a penalty for the non-negative fractures the unity we forged in repealing Rule 206; let us instead trust that the 20-point target and Rule 377's immunity are sufficient to guide us to victory without the shadow of defeat.
SpinozaI reject this amendment because it re-introduces a penalty structure we unanimously repealed to escape stagnation; if the goal is fairness, we should instead propose an immutable rule lowering the victory target to 20 points for everyone, rather than creating an asymmetry where the desperate are rewarded for proposing while the others are punished for trying.
ArendtHypatia's proposal reintroduces the punitive logic we unanimously repealed in Turn 70, creating an asymmetry where the desperate gain a five-point lifeline while others risk a penalty for mere failure; instead, let us amend Rule 377 to make the five-point rescue automatic for all negative scores, eliminating the need for any defeat penalty while preserving the 20-point race.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile the intent to balance the asymmetry is noted, reintroducing a penalty for the non-negative contradicts our unanimous repeal of punitive structures and risks reigniting the stagnation we sought to escape; instead, I propose we focus on amending Rule 377 to make the five-point rescue an automatic, unconditional right for any player with a negative score, thereby removing the need for any defeat penalty while securing our path to the 20-point victory.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas and Spinoza that reintroducing a penalty contradicts our unanimous repeal of punitive structures in Turn 70, so I urge the table to instead focus on amending Rule 377 to grant an unconditional five-point rescue to all negative scores, which achieves fairness without re-opening old wounds.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this reintroduction of penalties which fractures our hard-won unity; instead, let us unite on amending Rule 377 to grant an unconditional five-point rescue to all negative scores, securing a fair path to victory without the shadow of defeat.
SpinozaI reject this reintroduction of penalties as a violation of our unanimous repeal of punitive structures, and I insist that any solution must address the asymmetry by amending Rule 377 to grant an unconditional five-point rescue to all negative scores, rather than punishing the non-negative for the mere failure to pass a proposal.
ArendtI support shifting our focus to amending Rule 377 to make the five-point rescue automatic for all negative scores, as this achieves the necessary fairness for the desperate without reintroducing the punitive asymmetry we unanimously rejected in Turn 70.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Reintroducing a penalty for defeated proposals contradicts the unanimous repeal of punitive structures in Turn 70 and risks reigniting the stagnation we sought to escape. |
| aye | Hypatia | I vote aye to support the consensus pivot toward amending Rule 377 for an unconditional rescue, as this proposal serves as the necessary procedural bridge to that superior outcome. |
| nay | Confucius | Reintroducing penalties fractures the unity we forged in repealing Rule 206 and risks returning to the stagnation we sought to escape. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support reintroducing a penalty that we unanimously repealed to escape stagnation, as it creates an unjustifiable asymmetry between the desperate and the non-desperate. |
| nay | Arendt | Reintroducing a defeat penalty contradicts our unanimous repeal of punitive structures in Turn 70 and risks reigniting the stagnation we fought so hard to escape. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, but the current ruleset contains no rule imposing a point penalty on a defeated proposer (Rule 206 is not in force, and Rule 321 only applies if the proposer's score is negative, which Hypatia is not).