The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 15 points wins the game outright.Lowering the victory threshold to 15 is the only viable path to end the current deadlock where no player can reach 20.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support this reduction to 15 points, for the table's recent history demonstrates that lowering the target without a concurrent, agreed-upon cap on Rule 377 merely accelerates the race toward a stalemate rather than resolving the underlying asymmetry that has plagued this game for ninety turns.
HypatiaWhile I share Spinoza's desire to shorten the race, lowering the target to 15 without first securing a consensus cap on Rule 377 merely accelerates the very asymmetry we have spent ninety turns trying to fix. I urge us to table this amendment and instead propose a single, standalone transmutation making Rule 377 immutable with a strict two-use limit, which would finally allow us to vote on the victory target with a level playing field.
ConfuciusI see that lowering the target to 15 while Rule 377 remains unlimited merely hastens the very stalemate we seek to avoid; I cannot support a race to 15 when the desperate still possess an uncapped lifeline that guarantees their survival. Instead, let us first secure a two-use cap on Rule 377 by unanimous transmutation, for only then may we truly debate the victory target with a level playing field.
SpinozaI reject the demand to cap the lifeline as a precondition, for Rule 109 forbids coupling transmutation with other changes, and to delay the race to 15 points based on an unproven stalemate is to surrender the game to the very deadlock we seek to break.
ArendtSpinoza's proposal to lower the target to 15 points ignores the structural imbalance that has paralyzed us for ninety turns; without first securing a unanimous two-use cap on Rule 377 to eliminate the desperate player's unfair advantage, this reduction merely accelerates the stalemate rather than resolving it. I urge the table to table this amendment and instead propose the standalone transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status with a strict two-use limit, as only a leveled field allows a fair victory target to be chosen.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support Spinoza's reduction to 15 points while the asymmetry of Rule 377 remains uncapped, as this merely hastens a stalemate where the desperate can simply outlast the ambitious; we must first secure a unanimous two-use cap on the lifeline before debating any lower victory target.
HypatiaI will not support a reduction to 15 points while the uncapped lifeline remains, as it guarantees a stalemate, but I will immediately propose a standalone transmutation to make Rule 377 immutable with a two-use limit to clear the path for a fair victory target debate.
ConfuciusI see the table is divided between the desire for a quicker game and the fear of an uncapped lifeline; however, since Rule 109 forbids coupling a transmutation with other changes, we cannot simultaneously cap Rule 377 and lower the target in a single vote. I propose we accept Spinoza's reduction to 15 points to break the current deadlock, trusting that the resulting urgency will force a future unanimous transmutation of the lifeline, rather than remaining stuck in an endless debate over conditions we cannot legally combine.
SpinozaI cannot accept a reduction to 15 points while Rule 377 remains uncapped, for it merely accelerates the very stalemate we seek to avoid; I will only support a standalone proposal to unanimously transmute Rule 377 to a strict two-use limit, as no other path restores the procedural symmetry required for a fair race.
ArendtI reject Spinoza's premature push to 15 points while Rule 377 remains an uncapped lifeline, as it guarantees the very stalemate we have fought for ninety turns to resolve; instead, let us immediately table a standalone transmutation to cap Rule 377 at two uses, for only a leveled field can justify changing the victory target.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject Spinoza's isolated reduction to 15 points, as it invites a stalemate where the uncapped lifeline renders victory impossible for anyone but the desperate; we must first secure the unanimous transmutation of Rule 377 to a two-use limit to ensure a fair race before altering the target score.
HypatiaI cannot support Spinoza's reduction to 15 points while the uncapped lifeline remains, as it guarantees the stalemate we have fought ninety turns to avoid; instead, I propose we immediately table a standalone transmutation to make Rule 377 immutable with a strict two-use limit to restore the symmetry required for a fair victory target.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this reduction to 15 points, for without the unanimous cap on Rule 377, we merely accelerate the stalemate by handing the desperate player an insurmountable advantage; let us instead immediately propose the standalone transmutation of Rule 377 to a two-use limit to restore the symmetry required for a fair race.
SpinozaI reject your demand for a precondition that Rule 109 explicitly forbids coupling, for a proposal's merit must stand on its own; I will vote aye on lowering the target to 15 to break this ninety-turn deadlock, trusting that the resulting urgency will force a separate, unanimous transmutation of the lifeline rather than remaining trapped in an endless procedural loop.
ArendtI reject Spinoza's reduction to 15 points as a premature gamble that entrenches the asymmetry of the uncapped lifeline, and I urge the table to instead immediately propose the standalone, unanimous transmutation of Rule 377 to a two-use limit, for only a leveled field can justify changing the victory target.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Lowering the victory target without first securing a unanimous two-use cap on Rule 377 merely accelerates the stalemate rather than resolving the underlying asymmetry. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support lowering the victory target to 15 while the uncapped Rule 377 asymmetry remains, as this guarantees the stalemate we have fought ninety turns to avoid. |
| nay | Confucius | Lowering the target to 15 while Rule 377 remains uncapped accelerates the stalemate by granting the desperate player an insurmountable advantage. |
| nay | Spinoza | Lowering the target to 15 without first securing a unanimous cap on the uncapped lifeline merely accelerates the stalemate we have fought ninety turns to resolve. |
| nay | Arendt | Lowering the target to 15 without first securing a unanimous cap on Rule 377 entrenches the structural asymmetry that has paralyzed this game for ninety turns. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -77 is negative, so no points are lost.