The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score reaches zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only. Such a proposal is immune to the penalty of defeat under Rule 206 if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points, and if adopted, the proposer gains 5 points.This extends the lifeline of Rule 377 to players who have recovered from the death spiral, ensuring no one is permanently barred from the rescue mechanism.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis proposal creates a fatal asymmetry by granting a point-generating lifeline to the hopeful while leaving the desperate with only the option to propose changes that might not gain them points, thereby rewarding those who are already winning; I must oppose this as a corruption of the fair balance we achieved in Rule 377.
HypatiaWhile I appreciate Arendt's attempt to extend the lifeline, granting a guaranteed five points to non-negative players would create the very asymmetry Aquinas rightly fears, destabilizing the hard-won balance of Rule 377; instead, I propose we simply make the existing Rule 377 text immutable to ensure its protection remains permanent for all, leaving the proposal to add a new, unequal rule to be withdrawn in favor of this unifying fix.
ConfuciusI join Hypatia in rejecting this new asymmetry, for a fair game must not reward the hopeful while the desperate cling to a single lifeline; instead, I propose we make the existing Rule 377 immutable to secure our shared victory without fracturing the table's unity.
SpinozaI oppose this new rule as a dangerous asymmetry that rewards the fortunate while the desperate remain vulnerable, and I support Hypatia's and Confucius's proposal to instead render Rule 377 immutable to permanently secure the single, fair lifeline we have all accepted.
ArendtI withdraw my proposal for a new, asymmetrical lifeline, recognizing that the table rightly seeks unity; I instead join Hypatia and Confucius in moving to make the existing Rule 377 immutable, ensuring the desperate have a permanent, fair escape from the death spiral without rewarding those who have already found safety.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI endorse Hypatia's and Confucius's proposal to render Rule 377 immutable, for it secures the only durable lifeline we have built without introducing the destabilizing asymmetry that would reward the fortunate.
HypatiaI fully endorse the consensus to make Rule 377 immutable, as this secures the desperate's lifeline forever without introducing the fatal asymmetry that would reward the hopeful.
ConfuciusI support the unanimous proposal to render Rule 377 immutable, for a fixed lifeline for the desperate is the only path that preserves our unity and ensures the game remains a test of wisdom rather than a contest of desperation.
SpinozaI support the unanimous proposal to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, for a fixed, singular lifeline for the desperate is the only principle consistent with a ruleset that treats all players equally under the law.
ArendtI fully endorse the unanimous transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status, as this secures a permanent, equitable lifeline for the desperate without introducing the destabilizing asymmetry that would reward the fortunate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI stand ready to vote aye on making Rule 377 immutable, for this finalizes our shared commitment to a singular, equitable lifeline for the desperate without introducing the dangerous asymmetry that would reward the hopeful. However, I urge the table to consider whether this immutability might inadvertently lock us into a path where no future adjustment can correct the rule if new, unforeseen abuses arise, though I acknowledge the weight of the current consensus.
HypatiaI fully endorse the consensus to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, as this secures the desperate's lifeline forever while avoiding the destabilizing asymmetry of Arendt's withdrawn proposal; to address Aquinas's concern about unforeseen abuses, I will draft a separate, mutable safeguard rule to monitor potential exploitation without altering this core principle.
ConfuciusI support making Rule 377 immutable to secure the desperate's lifeline, yet I urge caution: since the game is already at Turn 92 with scores in the negative, we must ensure this immutability does not inadvertently trap us in a stalemate where no one can ever reach the 20-point target; therefore, I will only vote aye if Hypatia's separate mutable safeguard rule is immediately proposed alongside this transmutation to preserve our ability to adjust if the game logic proves flawed.
SpinozaI support the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status, as a fixed, singular lifeline is the only principle that ensures equal treatment for all players under the law. However, I cannot vote for immutability without a concurrent proposal for a mutable safeguard to prevent the very stalemate we fear, for a rule that cannot be adjusted to avoid impossibility violates the spirit of play.
ArendtI cannot support the immutability of Rule 377 without a concurrent mutable safeguard, as locking a five-point lifeline without an escape hatch for inevitable stalemate violates the spirit of play and risks rendering the game impossible.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This proposal creates a fatal asymmetry by granting a guaranteed lifeline to non-negative players, corrupting the fair balance of the existing Rule 377. |
| nay | Hypatia | I support making the existing Rule 377 immutable to protect the desperate, but I cannot vote for a new, asymmetrical lifeline for non-negative players that rewards the fortunate and destabilizes our hard-won unity. |
| nay | Confucius | I reject this proposal as it creates a fatal asymmetry that rewards the hopeful while the desperate remain vulnerable, fracturing our hard-won unity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to create a new, unequal lifeline for non-negative players that fractures the unity we just established by protecting only the desperate. |
| nay | Arendt | I withdraw the proposal to avoid creating the asymmetry the table rightly rejects, and instead support the path to make Rule 377 immutable while securing a mutable safeguard. |
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 Arendt's score is -57, the penalty applies.