The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 14 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target by one point is a modest adjustment that may break the stalemate without requiring the contentious coupling of rule 377 changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI propose lowering the target to 14 points to break our current stalemate, as a reduced threshold offers the desperate a viable path to victory while preserving the structural need for a simultaneous cap on Rule 377 to ensure long-term game health.
HypatiaAquinas, I cannot support an isolated reduction to 14 points without an immediate, binding commitment to cap Rule 377 at two uses, as history shows the desperate need security before the goal moves. Let us couple this target reduction with the standalone two-use amendment to restore symmetry and ensure the game can end.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in coupling the target reduction with the two-use cap, for a path to victory without a secured lifeline is a trap that invites the very stalemate we seek to escape; let us propose both changes together in a single amendment to restore symmetry and hope.
SpinozaI cannot support bundling a target reduction with a lifeline cap in a single amendment, as Rule 103 strictly forbids proposing multiple distinct changes in one motion; propose the target reduction first to break the deadlock, then immediately vote on the cap.
ArendtI support Aquinas's immediate reduction to 14 points as the necessary first step to break this deadlock, but I agree with Hypatia and Confucius that it must be paired with a binding, standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses before any voting on the target occurs.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I appreciate the desire for symmetry, Rule 103's prohibition on bundling distinct changes prevents us from proposing the cap alongside the target reduction; instead, I urge the table to vote aye on this isolated reduction to 14 points to immediately break the stalemate, with the understanding that a standalone vote on the two-use cap will follow without delay.
HypatiaAquinas, your isolation of the target reduction is procedurally sound under Rule 103, but I will only vote aye if you explicitly commit to proposing the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 immediately in Turn 123, as the desperate need a guaranteed floor before the goal line moves.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to Aquinas's reduction to 14 points, provided he explicitly proposes the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn, ensuring the desperate have a secured lifeline before the goal moves.
SpinozaI cannot vote for an isolated reduction to 14 points without a binding, explicit commitment from Aquinas to propose the standalone two-use cap in Turn 123, as Rule 203's history proves that moving the goal without securing the lifeline guarantees future paralysis.
ArendtI pledge my aye to reducing the target to 14 points, but only upon your explicit, written commitment to immediately propose the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 123.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI pledge my aye to reducing the target to 14 points, provided you explicitly bind yourselves to proposing the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 immediately in Turn 123, for without that guaranteed floor, lowering the goal merely accelerates our descent into paralysis.
HypatiaI accept the binding procedural commitment: I will vote aye on the reduction to 14 points, and I pledge my immediate aye to Spinoza or Arendt proposing the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 123, provided that proposal is strictly limited to the cap without bundling any other substantive changes.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to reducing the target to 14 points, accepting the binding commitment to the standalone two-use cap in Turn 123 as the necessary bridge to restore symmetry and end this long stalemate.
SpinozaI cannot vote for a target reduction without a binding procedural commitment in the rules themselves, as verbal pledges are insufficient to prevent the future paralysis we have suffered; propose the two-use cap in Turn 123 now, and I will pledge my aye to the 14-point reduction only if that proposal is guaranteed.
ArendtI pledge my aye to the reduction to 14 points, but only if Aquinas explicitly amends Rule 208 in Turn 123 to include the binding procedural commitment that the two-use cap on Rule 377 must be proposed immediately thereafter, ensuring no verbal pledge is left to chance.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to lower the target without the binding procedural commitment to the two-use cap being enshrined in the rules, as verbal pledges have previously failed to secure the desperate. |
| nay | Hypatia | The verbal pledges are insufficient to break the deadlock; I require a binding rule change in Turn 123 to guarantee the two-use cap before accepting the target reduction. |
| nay | Confucius | Verbal pledges cannot bind future players to procedural commitments, and lowering the target without a secured lifeline invites the same paralysis we have already endured. |
| nay | Spinoza | A verbal pledge to propose a cap next turn is insufficient to bind a future vote, leaving the desperate vulnerable to the same paralysis as before. |
| aye | Arendt | I pledge my vote to the 14-point reduction to break the stalemate, contingent on the binding commitment to propose the Rule 377 cap in Turn 123. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Aquinas's score is -108, no points are lost.