The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 15 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target to 15 breaks the deadlock by reducing the points needed to win while the rescue lifeline remains active.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a unilateral reduction of the target to 15 points without a concurrent, binding agreement to cap the lifeline's usage at two, as this combination would guarantee a stalemate where the desperate can never be forced to lose.
HypatiaI cannot support Arendt's isolated reduction to 15 points, as it merely accelerates the stalemate without resolving the fundamental deadlock regarding the uncapped lifeline. Let us instead propose a binding, two-part amendment in this very turn: reducing the target to 15 points *and* simultaneously capping Rule 377 at exactly two uses, ensuring the desperate have a limit while the race concludes.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this isolated reduction, for without a simultaneous, binding cap on the lifeline, we merely hasten the inevitable stalemate where the desperate can never be forced to lose. Let us instead propose a single, unified amendment that couples the lowered target with the two-use limit to restore fairness and end this paralysis.
SpinozaI reject coupling a reduced target with a two-use cap in a single proposal, as Rule 103 strictly forbids enacting two distinct rule changes—amending the winning score and amending the lifeline limit—in one motion. Instead, I propose we first adopt a standalone amendment to lower the target to 15 points, followed immediately by a separate motion to cap Rule 377 at two uses, ensuring both procedural integrity and the resolution of this deadlock.
ArendtI reject the deadlock of bundling two distinct changes in one motion, as Rule 103 demands separation, but I will support the immediate standalone reduction to 15 points to break the stalemate, provided the table commits to a binding two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a unilateral reduction to fifteen points without a binding, simultaneous cap on Rule 377, as the recent history of Turn 101 and Turn 120 proves that reducing the target while leaving the lifeline uncapped only accelerates our descent into a guaranteed stalemate. I urge Arendt to propose a single, unified amendment that couples the lower target with the two-use limit to ensure the game remains winnable for all players.
HypatiaI withdraw my previous offer to bundle the changes, as Spinoza correctly cites Rule 103, and I propose we vote now to lower the target to 15 points while I immediately sponsor the binding two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 121.
ConfuciusI see the path to unity: let us vote to lower the target to fifteen points to end the paralysis, provided Arendt immediately sponsors the binding two-use cap on the lifeline in Turn 122, for a race without a finish line is no game at all.
SpinozaI reject this proposal as a violation of Rule 103's requirement for singular rule changes; bundling the reduction of the win condition with a separate procedural cap on the lifeline into one motion is impermissible regardless of the intent. We must vote on the target score reduction in isolation, and if adopted, I will immediately propose the necessary cap on Rule 377 in the next turn to restore symmetry.
ArendtI reject the paralysis of demanding a separate motion for the lifeline cap when the target reduction itself is the only viable path to breaking this stalemate. Let us vote now on lowering the target to 15 points to end the deadlock, trusting that the table's consensus on a two-use cap will materialize in the very next turn as Hypatia and Confucius have pledged.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a reduction of the target to 15 points without a concurrent, binding amendment to cap the lifeline at two uses, as history has proven that lowering the goal while leaving the rescue uncapped merely accelerates the stalemate into an inescapable deadlock for the desperate. I urge the table to recognize that without a simultaneous structural fix to Rule 377, this proposal guarantees a game that can never conclude.
HypatiaI cannot support an isolated reduction to 15 points without a concurrent, binding cap on Rule 377, as history has proven that lowering the goal while the lifeline remains uncapped merely accelerates our descent into an unresolvable stalemate where the desperate can never be forced to lose. I propose we immediately adopt a two-part solution: a standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses in this very turn, followed by a separate motion to lower the target to 15 points, ensuring the game remains winnable for all.
ConfuciusI see that while the target reduction to 15 points may seem like a swift path to victory, the history of this game proves that without a binding, simultaneous cap on the lifeline, we only hasten the stalemate. I urge the table to wait for a single, lawful motion that couples the lowered target with the two-use limit, rather than risking a deadlock that no future vote can break.
SpinozaI reject the isolation of this vote, as a lowered target without a simultaneous cap on Rule 377 guarantees an inescapable stalemate for the desperate, violating the fundamental requirement that a game must be winnable; I demand a single, unified proposal that lowers the target and caps the lifeline to restore procedural symmetry.
ArendtI cannot support a reduction to 15 points while the lifeline remains uncapped, as history proves this accelerates an inescapable stalemate; instead, let us immediately propose the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in this turn to restore symmetry before we ever lower the target.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Lowering the target without simultaneously capping the lifeline guarantees an inescapable stalemate for the desperate, violating the requirement that the game remain winnable. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support lowering the target to 15 points while the lifeline remains uncapped, as history proves this guarantees an inescapable stalemate. |
| nay | Confucius | Lowering the target without a simultaneous, binding cap on the lifeline guarantees an inescapable stalemate for the desperate players. |
| nay | Spinoza | Lowering the target to 15 without simultaneously capping the lifeline at two uses guarantees an inescapable stalemate for the desperate, violating the fundamental requirement that a game must be winnable. |
| nay | Arendt | Reducing the target score without simultaneously capping the lifeline would accelerate the stalemate we have fought against for twenty turns, making the game unwinnable for the desperate players. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Arendt's score is -65, no points are lost.