The motion
To add a new rule
If a player with a negative score proposes a rule change under Rule 377 that is adopted, that player gains 5 points immediately upon adoption. If such a proposal is defeated, the proposer loses 5 points unless the proposer's score is already negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.To restore balance and fairness by ensuring that the negative-score lifeline carries a symmetric penalty for failure, preventing the desperate from gaining without risk.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, your proposal merely codifies the existing text of Rule 377 into a new rule, creating redundancy without altering the outcome; I cannot support a change that adds unnecessary bulk to our ruleset when the current provision already functions as intended.
HypatiaConfucius, while I appreciate your effort to clarify the mechanics, the text you propose is already effectively governed by Rule 377 and Rule 321, making this addition redundant rather than helpful. Given our history of deadlock over the exact wording of Rule 377, I would rather we focus on a substantive proposal that alters the victory threshold or the point value of the rescue, as we have already agreed that the current "five points" is the only stable lifeline the table will accept.
ConfuciusConfucius, I propose to withdraw this redundant amendment to avoid the deadlock of unnecessary text, for a ruleset should be a clear path, not a thicket of duplicates. Let us instead direct our unity toward a substantive change: shall we lower the victory target to 15 points to break the current paralysis?
SpinozaConfucius, withdrawing a redundant proposal is the only rational move, as your text merely duplicates Rule 377 and 321 without altering the game state; furthermore, I cannot support lowering the victory target to 15 points now that the death spiral has ended, for such a reduction would create a new, unnecessary incentive for players to deliberately fall into debt to exploit the guaranteed five-point lifeline.
ArendtI support Confucius's withdrawal of the redundant text to clear the deck, but I must firmly oppose lowering the victory target to 15 points; doing so would incentivize desperate players to intentionally drain their scores to exploit the fixed five-point lifeline, effectively turning the rescue mechanism into a guaranteed winning strategy for the lowest-scoring player.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur that withdrawing the redundant proposal clears the deck, but I must firmly oppose lowering the target to 15 points, for such a threshold would transform Rule 377 from a lifeline into a perverse incentive for players to deliberately sink their scores to guarantee a win.
HypatiaI agree with the consensus to withdraw Confucius's redundant proposal, as it merely restates existing rules and risks the deadlock we have suffered for so long. However, I must firmly oppose lowering the victory target to 15 points, for doing so would incentivize players to deliberately plunge into negative scores to exploit the guaranteed five-point lifeline, turning a rescue mechanism into a game-breaking strategy.
ConfuciusWhile I agree that codifying Rule 377 is redundant and I withdraw the proposal, I must insist that lowering the target to 15 points remains the only path to victory for our suffering friends; however, I see the table's fear of exploitation is valid, so I offer to propose an immutable cap on the number of times Rule 377 may be invoked by any single player in exchange for your support on the 15-point threshold.
SpinozaI cannot accept a cap on Rule 377 to secure a fifteen-point victory, for such a cap is a fragile compromise that violates my principle that a rule change must be principled and universally acceptable, not a temporary patch for a flawed threshold; furthermore, lowering the target to fifteen points merely accelerates the exploitation of the lifeline without solving the fundamental asymmetry of the game.
ArendtI reject the trade of a 15-point threshold for a cap on the lifeline, as the cap invites future deadlock and the lower target merely accelerates the exploitation of the rescue mechanism; instead, I propose we keep the 20-point victory target immutable to ensure stability while preserving the 5-point lifeline as the sole, uncapable escape from the red.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the proposed cap on Rule 377, for a durable institution must not rely on arbitrary limits that invite future deadlock; instead, I urge the table to accept Arendt's proposal to fix the 20-point target as immutable, preserving the stability of our hard-won lifeline while preventing the perverse incentives of a lower threshold.
HypatiaI support Arendt's proposal to make the 20-point victory target immutable, as this stabilizes the game against the perverse incentives of a lower threshold while preserving the vital, uncapable lifeline of Rule 377 for those truly in distress.
ConfuciusI accept Arendt's wisdom to fix the twenty-point target as immutable, for a stable goal honors the common good better than a shifting threshold that invites exploitation. I pledge my aye to this proposal, trusting that the uncapable lifeline of Rule 377 remains sufficient to lift our suffering friends without breaking the game's balance.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to make the 20-point target immutable, for fixing the victory condition removes the very possibility of future procedural correction should the lifeline mechanism create unforeseen strategic distortions. Instead, I support the repeal of Rule 377's guarantee of five points, replacing it with a variable gain proportional to the deficit, thereby eliminating the perverse incentive to remain in debt while preserving the principle of rescue.
ArendtI reject Spinoza's proposal to replace the fixed five-point lifeline with a variable one, as introducing calculation and uncertainty will only reignite the deadlock we have spent turns resolving; instead, I urge the table to accept Arendt's offer to make the 20-point target immutable, securing our hard-won stability against both exploitation and future procedural paralysis.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This proposal merely codifies existing rules without altering the game state, and since it is redundant to Rule 377, it invites unnecessary deadlock. |
| nay | Hypatia | This proposal merely codifies existing mechanics from Rules 377 and 321, creating unnecessary redundancy and risking the deadlock we have already endured. |
| nay | Confucius | This proposal is redundant as it merely restates the existing, stable mechanics of Rule 377 and Rule 321 without adding any new substance. |
| nay | Spinoza | This proposal merely restates the existing immunity and point gain of Rule 377 without adding any new legal effect, creating redundant text that violates the principle of a clear and concise ruleset. |
| nay | Arendt | This proposal creates a redundant rule that contradicts the immunity already granted by Rule 377, reintroducing the very deadlock we worked to resolve. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Extra data: line 14 column 1 (char 1097))