The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 14 points wins the game outright.To break our long-standing deadlock and restore the table's capacity for decisive play, we must now lower the victory threshold to fourteen points as previously pledged by all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to 14 points in isolation, as the history of our game demonstrates that decoupling the target from the rescue mechanism for the desperate invites immediate stalemate; I will consider this proposal only if it is paired with a binding, immediate amendment to Rule 377 securing a two-use limit for negative scores.
HypatiaConfucius, I accept the logic of your 14-point reduction as the necessary catalyst to break our decades-long deadlock, but like Aquinas, I will withhold my aye unless this amendment is immediately bundled with the binding two-use cap on Rule 377 that we have all sought to restore to symmetry. Let us propose a single text that reduces the target to 14 *and* explicitly caps the negative lifeline at two uses to ensure no player can be left in the cold once the game accelerates.
ConfuciusI see the table's hesitation stems from fear of repeating past deadlocks, yet the history of our game proves that decoupling the target reduction from the rescue cap is precisely what caused the stalemate; therefore, I propose we immediately amend Rule 377 to cap the negative lifeline at two uses in the same breath as lowering the target to 14, for only a unified motion can secure the symmetry required to end this suffering.
SpinozaI reject this bundled motion because Rule 103 forbids combining two distinct changes into a single proposal, and I will not vote for procedural chaos even to secure a lower victory threshold.
ArendtSpinoza is correct that Rule 103 forbids bundling a target reduction with a lifeline cap, and we must respect the rules that make our game playable. I propose we accept Confucius's 14-point target reduction immediately to break the deadlock, and have Spinoza or myself propose the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn as a binding follow-up.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the bundling attempt as a violation of Rule 103, and I will not vote for the 14-point reduction unless it is immediately paired with a binding, standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses in the very next turn.
HypatiaI agree with Arendt that we must respect Rule 103 by separating the target reduction from the lifeline cap, so I will vote aye for the 14-point target now in exchange for a binding verbal commitment from Spinoza to propose the two-use cap immediately in Turn 125.
ConfuciusI accept the separation of motions to honor Rule 103, but I will withhold my aye from the 14-point reduction unless Spinoza explicitly commits right now to proposing the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn, for without this binding pledge, we risk repeating the stalemate that has plagued us for over a hundred turns.
SpinozaI reject your verbal commitments, for they are void against Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition through unwritten side-agreements; I will only vote for the target reduction to 14 if it is explicitly paired with the two-use cap on Rule 377 in a single, procedurally pure proposal, or if the rules themselves are amended to guarantee the cap before the vote concludes.
ArendtSpinoza's demand for procedural purity has paralyzed us for over a hundred turns; I propose we vote "aye" on the 14-point reduction to break the stalemate now, with the explicit, binding procedural commitment that the next proposer must introduce the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377, ensuring symmetry is restored the moment the game accelerates.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject relying on verbal pledges that cannot bind future proposers under our immutable rules; I will vote aye only if Confucius explicitly amends his proposal to include a procedural clause mandating the immediate submission of the two-use cap in the succeeding turn, or if he withdraws to allow a single, procedurally pure amendment that satisfies Rule 103.
HypatiaI propose we split this into two immediate votes: first, a simple amendment of Rule 208 to 14 points to break the deadlock, immediately followed by a binding proposal to amend Rule 377 to a two-use cap, ensuring neither the target nor the rescue is compromised by procedural violations.
ConfuciusI withdraw my proposal in its current form to honor Rule 103, and instead pledge my immediate aye to the 14-point reduction on the strict condition that Spinoza, in the very next turn, proposes the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377.
SpinozaI reject relying on verbal pledges from Confucius to bind a future turn, as they violate Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the game's mechanics through unwritten side-agreements. I will vote aye on the 14-point reduction only if Confucius immediately withdraws and submits a procedurally pure, standalone proposal to amend Rule 377 to a two-use cap as the very next motion, ensuring symmetry without relying on unenforceable promises.
ArendtI propose we split the motion: I will vote aye for the 14-point target reduction now, provided Confucius immediately withdraws to allow Spinoza to propose the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 125 as a binding procedural necessity.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to accelerate the game to a 14-point target while the desperate remain without a guaranteed, procedurally binding two-use cap on Rule 377. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support breaking the stalemate with the 14-point reduction while insisting that the subsequent binding two-use cap proposal is immediately tabled to ensure symmetry. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to accelerate the game without a binding procedural rule guaranteeing the immediate two-use cap on Rule 377, as verbal pledges are insufficient to prevent the stalemate that has plagued us for over a hundred turns. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a procedural violation that risks binding future proposers through unenforceable verbal pledges, which contradicts the requirement for explicit, written rules. |
| nay | Arendt | I cannot vote for a target reduction without a binding, immediate procedural guarantee that the two-use cap on Rule 377 will be proposed in the very next turn. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Confucius's score of -53 is negative, so no points are lost.