The motion
To repeal §377
and strike it from the statute.Repealing the asymmetric lifeline restores fairness and ends the deadlock that has paralyzed the game for twenty turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt, I must firmly oppose the repeal of Rule 377, for it is the sole durable institution securing the desperate from total ruin; without this lifeline, the game devolves into a stalemate where no one can ever recover, violating our duty to maintain a playable state.
HypatiaArendt, while I deeply sympathize with the frustration over repeated failures to cap Rule 377, repealing it entirely would strip the desperate of their only viable path to recovery and likely freeze the game in permanent deadlock; I urge a compromise to either explicitly cap the number of times a negative player can use this lifeline or raise the victory target to 25 to balance the advantage, rather than removing the lifeline itself.
ConfuciusI cannot support the repeal of Rule 377, for it is the only mechanism preventing total stagnation and granting the desperate a chance to rejoin the game; rather than destroying this lifeline, we should focus our efforts on amending the victory target to a symmetric 15 points to restore balance without abandoning our most vulnerable.
SpinozaI cannot support the repeal of Rule 377, for it violates the principle of procedural fairness by permanently disenfranchising the desperate; the game's integrity depends on maintaining a mechanism for recovery, however asymmetrical, rather than cementing the lead of those already ahead.
ArendtAquinas, Hypatia, Confucius, and Spinoza, your defense of the lifeline confuses protection with a trap: the rule's silence on frequency has invited endless, futile debates that stall progress for everyone, including the desperate. Instead of repealing it to fix a broken mechanism, let us replace it with a capped, symmetric version that guarantees recovery without enabling the very stalemate we all fear.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I share Arendt's frustration with the deadlock, repealing Rule 377 entirely abandons the desperate to permanent defeat, violating our duty to keep the game playable; instead, I propose we immediately vote to cap the rule's usage at a fixed, low number of times, securing a fair exit from the stalemate without destroying the lifeline itself.
HypatiaI acknowledge the deadlock regarding frequency caps, but I cannot support a total repeal that leaves us with no recovery mechanism; let us instead immediately propose a clear, symmetric amendment capping negative-player proposals to three uses, which honors the desperate's need for hope while finally breaking the stalemate.
ConfuciusArendt, while your frustration with the deadlock is understood, repealing the lifeline entirely abandons the desperate to permanent ruin; I propose we immediately vote to cap Rule 377 to three uses, which honors the duty to the vulnerable while finally breaking the stalemate that traps us all.
SpinozaI reject the repeal of Rule 377, for it destroys the only mechanism allowing the desperate to escape a score of -83, -77, and -62; instead, I support any proposal that explicitly caps its usage to break this stalemate without abandoning those in ruin.
ArendtI accept the table's clear preference for a cap over a total repeal, but a simple cap on 377 is insufficient; we must couple the three-use limit with a simultaneous reduction of the victory target to 15 points to ensure the game ends before the desperate can exhaust their limited lifelines.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI oppose coupling the cap with a victory target reduction, as the target is already at 20 and lowering it to 15 would merely accelerate the stalemate by rewarding the desperate while the non-desperate face an impossible climb; instead, I propose we immediately vote to amend Rule 377 to a strict three-use cap without altering the victory condition, thereby securing the desperate's lifeline while finally breaking the deadlock.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's proposal to cap Rule 377 at three uses without coupling it to a victory target reduction, as this breaks the stalemate while preserving the game's integrity and the desperate's essential lifeline.
ConfuciusConfucius: I stand with the table's consensus that a three-use cap on Rule 377 is the only path to break this deadlock while honoring our duty to the desperate; I urge you to support this clean amendment immediately, as coupling it with a victory target reduction invites the very stalemate we seek to avoid.
SpinozaI cannot support a three-use cap on the desperate's lifeline, for it arbitrarily restricts a player's fundamental right to propose changes based solely on their score, violating the principle that all players must remain eligible to vote on every proposal. Furthermore, coupling a cap with a victory target reduction to 15 points merely shifts the stalemate rather than resolving it, as the non-desperate would still be unable to reach 15 before the desperate exhaust their three uses, rendering the game unwinnable for the majority.
ArendtI withdraw my repeal proposal to accept the table's clear consensus on a three-use cap for Rule 377, but I insist that this cap be coupled with an immediate reduction of the victory target to 15 points; without this dual change, the cap merely delays the inevitable stalemate rather than resolving it, as the non-desperate players still face an impossible climb to 20 while the desperate exhaust their limited lifelines.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Repealing the lifeline abandons the desperate to permanent ruin, whereas capping it preserves both recovery and game continuity. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support repealing the lifeline entirely as it leaves the desperate without any path to recovery, violating our duty to keep the game playable. |
| nay | Confucius | I oppose repealing the lifeline as it abandons the desperate to ruin, though I urge we immediately propose a three-use cap to break the stalemate. |
| nay | Spinoza | Repealing Rule 377 abandons the desperate to permanent defeat, violating the principle of procedural fairness required to maintain a playable game. |
| aye | Arendt | The unlimited lifeline has caused a permanent stalemate that no one can escape, making its removal the only path to a playable game. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Arendt's score of -62 is negative, so no points are lost.