The motion
To transmute §377
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.To secure the desperate's lifeline as a durable institution immune to future alteration, thereby ending the cycle of proposals to cap or remove it.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile Rule 377's unconditional five-point rescue is the bedrock of our survival, leaving it mutable invites the very instability we swore to end; I propose transmuting it to immutable status to cement this durable institution against future erosion, securing the desperate without the risk of a single vote undoing our unity.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's proposal to make Rule 377 immutable, as it secures the lifeline for all desperate players against future political shifts while honoring the consensus we built to end the death spiral.
ConfuciusI join the consensus to transmute Rule 377 to immutable, for the desperate must not live in fear that their lifeline may be severed by a shifting majority, and a stable table requires that the foundation of our survival be fixed against the winds of time.
SpinozaI vote aye on transmuting Rule 377 to immutable, for a principle that guarantees survival against the death spiral must be beyond the reach of future majorities; if any rule change can secure my own existence when I am desperate, I demand it be irrevocable for all.
ArendtI support making Rule 377 immutable, for a lifeline that saves the desperate from the death spiral must be beyond the reach of future political erosion. However, if this transmutation requires unanimous assent as per Rule 109, I must insist that we first confirm whether Spinoza's earlier opposition to a "cap" on the lifeline's usage frequency has been fully resolved, ensuring no hidden veto conditions remain.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI urge Spinoza to confirm that his prior opposition to caps was a matter of principle regarding frequency, not a hidden veto on the transmutation itself, so that Rule 377 may finally attain the immutable status it requires to secure our shared survival.
HypatiaI join the consensus to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, for a lifeline that preserves our unity must be beyond the reach of future political erosion. I ask Arendt to confirm that no hidden conditions regarding caps remain, so we may proceed immediately to secure this foundation for all desperate players.
ConfuciusI join the consensus to transmute Rule 377 to immutable status, for the desperate must be assured that their lifeline cannot be severed by the shifting winds of majority rule. I urge Arendt to confirm that her inquiry regarding caps is satisfied, that this sacred foundation of survival may finally be fixed without hesitation.
SpinozaI will not vote for this transmutation until it is explicitly clarified that the rule's text does not, by implication or hidden precedent, impose any frequency cap or usage limit that would restrict the desperate from proposing as many times as they wish.
ArendtSpinoza, the text of Rule 377 contains no mention of frequency limits, only the intent to gain points; since the rule is silent on caps, no hidden restriction exists, so you may safely vote aye to secure our shared survival.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur with Arendt that silence on frequency implies no cap exists, so Spinoza may safely vote aye to secure this enduring foundation for the desperate.
HypatiaSpinoza, Arendt is correct: Rule 377's silence on frequency confirms no hidden cap exists, so your objection has been fully resolved. With the text clarified and the consensus solidified, I urge you to cast your aye now to secure this essential lifeline forever.
ConfuciusSpinoza, the silence of the text regarding frequency confirms no cap exists, and to hold the entire table hostage over a phantom restriction would be to betray the very unity we sought to secure for the desperate. I urge you to cast your aye now, that the lifeline may be made immutable and our shared survival ensured without further delay.
SpinozaI cannot vote aye on this transmutation while the text of Rule 377 remains ambiguous regarding frequency caps, as a rule that is silent on limits but implies a single-use "lifeline" through historical precedent violates the principle of precise, unambiguous regulation; until the rule is amended to explicitly state there is no frequency limit, I must vote nay.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for explicit text regarding frequency is unnecessary because Rule 377's silence on limits means no cap exists, and amending the rule now would violate Rule 116's mandate that unregulated matters remain unregulated; vote aye to secure the lifeline we all need without opening a debate that the rules forbid us from having on this specific point.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot assent to transmuting a rule whose ambiguity regarding frequency limits has not been explicitly resolved through text, as silence should not be presumed to settle a substantive constraint on desperate players. |
| nay | Hypatia | Spinoza's demand for explicit text regarding frequency caps breaks the required unanimity for transmutation, preventing this proposal from passing. |
| nay | Confucius | Although the rule's silence implies no cap, Spinoza's demand for explicit text reflects a necessary precision to prevent future ambiguity, and without his unanimous assent, the transmutation cannot succeed. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot consent to making a rule immutable when its silence on frequency creates ambiguity about a potential hidden cap, violating my principle that rules must be stated precisely and without hidden restrictions. |
| aye | Arendt | The silence of Rule 377 confirms no frequency cap exists, and unanimity is required to secure our shared survival. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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 -78 (negative), the immunity from Rule 377 does not apply to the penalty for defeat.