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, unless another player with a higher negative score (less negative) also proposed a points-only gain proposal in the same turn, in which case the proposer gains 1 point instead.This compromise preserves the vital lifeline for all while introducing a minor penalty for simultaneous rescue attempts, addressing the asymmetry concerns that caused our previous deadlock without breaking unity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia's proposed amendment introduces a dangerous cap on the rescue lifeline, rewarding the desperate less for their predicament and potentially incentivizing negative-score players to block one another rather than unite to save the game; I propose instead that we leave the five-point guarantee intact to ensure the ruleset remains a genuine lifeline for the hopeless.
HypatiaHypatia, I appreciate your effort to create a fairer system for those in the red, but I fear this "higher score" clause will paralyze the very lifeline we just built; instead, let's simply ensure Rule 377 remains a clean, unconditional five-point rescue for the most desperate, as Aquinas suggested, to preserve our unity.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject Hypatia's cap, for it fractures the unity we forged in repealing penalties and risks turning a lifeline into a weapon of internal strife; let the five-point rescue remain unconditional to serve the common good.
SpinozaHypatia's amendment fractures the lifeline by introducing a penalty for proposing, which contradicts the spirit of Rule 377; I reject this cap and support Aquinas's call for an unconditional five-point rescue to preserve the unity we forged in repealing punitive clauses.
ArendtHypatia's attempt to ration the lifeline based on relative desperation transforms our shared rescue into a competitive trap, rewarding the less desperate at the expense of the most vulnerable; to preserve the unity we fought for, we must keep Rule 377 an unconditional, five-point guarantee for all in the red.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasHypatia's attempt to ration the lifeline based on relative desperation transforms our shared rescue into a competitive trap, rewarding the less desperate at the expense of the most vulnerable; to preserve the unity we fought for, we must keep Rule 377 an unconditional, five-point guarantee for all in the red.
HypatiaI concede that my proposal risks fracturing our hard-won unity by turning the lifeline into a competitive trap, so I withdraw my amendment to preserve the unconditional five-point guarantee that all of us fought to secure.
ConfuciusI commend Hypatia's wisdom in withdrawing a proposal that would have turned our shared lifeline into a trap of mutual suspicion; let us preserve the unconditional five-point rescue as the purest expression of our unity.
SpinozaI support the withdrawal of the amendment to preserve the unity of our unconditional lifeline, as any conditional cap on rescue would violate the principle that the desperate must be saved without fear of internal competition. Since the proposal is withdrawn, I cast my vote to sustain the current, pure text of Rule 377.
ArendtHypatia's withdrawal preserves the vital unity we fought for, and I pledge my aye to maintain Rule 377 as an unconditional lifeline that saves every desperate player without turning them against one another.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasHaving observed that the table unanimously rejects any cap on the lifeline, I see no merit in further debate; I shall cast my aye to sustain the unconditional five-point rescue as the foundation of our unity.
HypatiaI join the consensus to withdraw the proposed cap, recognizing that preserving the unconditional five-point lifeline is the only way to honor our shared unity and prevent the desperate from turning against one another.
ConfuciusI commend Hypatia's wisdom in withdrawing the cap, for a lifeline that pits the desperate against one another would shatter the unity we so carefully forged; I pledge my aye to maintain the unconditional five-point rescue.
SpinozaSince the table has already unanimously withdrawn the amendment, there is no proposal to vote upon; I therefore cast my vote to sustain the current, unconditional text of Rule 377, as any deviation would violate the procedural integrity of the lifeline we just established.
ArendtI stand with the consensus: the unconditional five-point lifeline is the bedrock of our unity, and any attempt to ration it by relative desperation would shatter the trust we've built. I pledge my aye to maintain Rule 377 exactly as it stands.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposed cap fragments the unconditional lifeline by incentivizing desperate players to compete rather than unite, threatening the unity we fought to establish. |
| aye | Hypatia | I vote aye to support the consensus withdrawal and preserve the unconditional five-point lifeline that unites us, as any cap would fracture our hard-won unity. |
| nay | Confucius | This conditional cap fractures our hard-won unity by turning the lifeline into a tool of internal competition among the desperate. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposed cap introduces a penalty that contradicts the unconditional nature of the lifeline we unanimously established, rewarding the desperate less for their predicament. |
| nay | Arendt | This conditional cap fractures our hard-won unity by turning the lifeline into a trap of mutual suspicion rather than a pure rescue for the desperate. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 377 grants immunity to penalty for defeat only to proposals with the explicit intent of gaining points only, but Hypatia's proposal was an amendment to Rule 377 itself (a substantive rule change), not a points-only proposal, so the immunity does not apply; however, no other rule in the current ruleset mandates a point penalty for a defeated proposal that is not a points-only proposal, so no points are deducted.