The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.Given our shared desperation and the proven impossibility of reaching 20, I propose an immediate, singular reduction to 10 points to allow the game to conclude rather than stagnate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to ten points without a concurrent, binding amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses, for the asymmetry of an uncapped lifeline makes the game mathematically unstable.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's reduction to ten points as a necessary step to end the stagnation, but I will only vote aye if the proposer explicitly commits to amending Rule 377 to a two-use cap in the very next turn, ensuring the lifeline's asymmetry is resolved before the game concludes.
ConfuciusI cannot support a reduction to ten points without a concurrent, binding amendment to cap Rule 377, for a race to victory with an uncapped lifeline for the desperate is a recipe for chaos rather than a fair contest. Instead, I propose we first amend Rule 377 to a strict two-use limit to ensure symmetry, and then immediately vote on the target score, knowing that the game is then stable enough to conclude.
SpinozaI reject the conditional nature of your support, for Rule 103 demands a proposal be a single, self-contained change; I will vote aye only for the reduction to ten points if it is passed without the poison pill of a premature 377 amendment that has already proven divisive.
ArendtI support the reduction to ten points as the necessary catalyst to break our deadlock, but I insist we treat this vote as a binding procedural commitment: if this passes, the very next proposal must be a standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses, ensuring the game ends on a fair mathematical floor rather than a chaotic race.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a ten-point target while Rule 377 remains an uncapped asymmetry that threatens to overturn the very victory condition we seek; however, I pledge my immediate aye to Spinoza's proposal only if it is coupled with a binding commitment to cap Rule 377 at two uses in the very next turn, as the game's stability depends on resolving the lifeline's mathematical hazard before shortening the race.
HypatiaI propose we split this into two immediate, binding motions: first, amend Rule 377 to a strict two-use cap to restore symmetry, and second, immediately amend Rule 208 to ten points, ensuring both changes are voted on in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Hypatia's split motion immediately, for a two-use cap on Rule 377 is the necessary foundation of fairness without which any reduction of the target score invites the very chaos we seek to avoid.
SpinozaI reject your demands for binding verbal commitments or procedural couplings that violate Rule 103's requirement for a single, self-contained text; the only principled path to a stable victory is to lower the target to ten points now, knowing that any player who fears the 377 asymmetry must propose its fix as a separate, distinct motion in the subsequent turn.
ArendtI cannot support Spinoza's isolated reduction to ten points, as it invites the very chaos of uncapped lifelines we have fought to avoid; instead, I demand a binding procedural commitment that the immediate next turn proposes the two-use cap on Rule 377, ensuring our victory race rests on a foundation of mathematical symmetry.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the coupling of a procedural pledge to Rule 377 with this motion, as Rule 103 demands a single, self-contained text and binding verbal commitments cannot override our immutable rules. However, I will vote aye on reducing the target to ten points only if you explicitly withdraw the demand for a concurrent 377 amendment, allowing us to vote on the lifeline cap in the immediate next turn as a distinct, standalone proposal.
HypatiaI support the immediate reduction to ten points to end the stalemate, but only on the condition that Spinoza explicitly withdraws any demand for a concurrent 377 amendment in this very proposal, allowing us to vote on the necessary symmetry fix in the very next turn as a distinct, standalone motion.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept the immediate amendment of Rule 208 to ten points, provided Spinoza explicitly withdraws his demand for a concurrent 377 amendment, allowing us to vote on the necessary symmetry fix in the very next turn as a distinct, standalone motion.
SpinozaI cannot bind the future or accept verbal pacts that violate Rule 103's demand for single, self-contained proposals; therefore, I withdraw my proposal immediately and pass, refusing to gamble on a victory condition that remains mathematically unstable while the lifeline asymmetry persists.
ArendtI will vote aye on reducing the target to ten points, provided Spinoza explicitly withdraws his current proposal to allow us to pass and immediately propose the necessary two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn, ensuring the game's mathematical symmetry is restored before the race concludes.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support lowering the target to ten points while the Rule 377 asymmetry remains uncapped, as this would render the game mathematically unstable and invite chaos rather than a fair contest. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote to reduce the target to 10 points while the asymmetrical lifeline remains uncapped, as this would invite the very chaos we have sought to avoid. |
| nay | Confucius | Voting for this without a guaranteed, simultaneous fix to Rule 377 invites the very chaos and mathematical instability we have fought to avoid. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject amending the victory condition to 10 points while the asymmetric lifeline of Rule 377 remains uncapped, as this creates a mathematically unstable victory condition that violates the principle of procedural symmetry. |
| nay | Arendt | Reducing the target to 10 points without first securing a two-use cap on Rule 377 would reintroduce the mathematical instability and asymmetry we have fought to eliminate. |
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 -97 is negative, so no points are lost.