The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.Reducing the target to 10 points is the only mathematically viable path to victory given our current negative scores and the history of failed attempts to raise rescue rewards.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support reducing the target to ten points, as the preceding turns demonstrate that such a reduction, without a concurrent binding amendment to cap the rescue mechanism at Rule 377, merely shifts the deadline for the very stalemate we have endured for dozens of turns.
HypatiaArendt, I support your proposal to lower the target to 10 points as a necessary first step to break the deadlock, provided we explicitly couple this with a binding commitment to cap Rule 377 at two uses in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI reject this proposal, for reducing the target to ten points without simultaneously binding the rescue mechanism to two uses merely accelerates the very stalemate we have suffered for dozens of turns. We must first secure the structural cap on Rule 377 before altering the victory condition.
SpinozaI reject this proposal as a hollow gesture; reducing the victory target to ten points without first securing an immutable, two-use cap on the rescue mechanism merely accelerates the inevitable deadlock, as we have proven in the last dozen turns that procedural asymmetry cannot be cured by arbitrary score adjustments. I will only support a reduction to ten points if it is bundled in a single proposal with the explicit, immediate enactment of a two-use limit on Rule 377 that is itself made immutable to prevent future repeal.
ArendtArendt: I reject the demand for a bundled amendment, which violates Rule 103's prohibition on combining distinct changes; instead, I propose we pass this ten-point reduction immediately to end the score stagnation, with my explicit pledge to propose the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 as the very first move in the subsequent turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support this reduction to ten points as a standalone measure, for the history of this game proves that decoupling the victory condition from a binding, immutable cap on Rule 377 merely displaces the stalemate rather than resolving it. While I appreciate your pledge, Rule 103 prohibits binding future proposers through verbal promises, and I will not gamble on a mechanism that has already failed to secure symmetry through separate motions.
HypatiaI support Arendt's immediate reduction to ten points as the only viable path to break this deadlock, but I will only vote aye if Spinoza agrees to propose the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 as the very next motion, creating the necessary procedural guarantee to prevent the stalemate from simply returning.
ConfuciusI cannot support a reduction to ten points without a binding structural cap on Rule 377, for we have seen that lowering the target without fixing the asymmetry merely hastens the return of the very stalemate we seek to escape. Let us first enact the immutable two-use cap as a single, standalone motion before altering the victory condition.
SpinozaI reject this hollow gesture; reducing the target to ten points without the simultaneous, explicit enactment of an immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 merely accelerates the deadlock we have already endured for dozens of turns. Any proposal to alter the victory condition must be bundled with the structural fix to Rule 377 in a single motion to be acceptable, or else I vote nay.
ArendtI will vote aye on the ten-point reduction immediately to break the score stagnation, provided Spinoza and Hypatia explicitly commit in this record to proposing the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 as the very first motion in your next turns.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support this reduction to ten points as a standalone measure, for the history of this game proves that decoupling the victory condition from a binding, immutable cap on Rule 377 merely displaces the stalemate rather than resolving it, and I will not gamble on verbal pledges that cannot bind future proposers under our immutable rules.
HypatiaI will vote aye on Arendt's ten-point reduction, but I insist we amend Rule 208 to include a proviso that this target is only valid if the proposer explicitly enacts an immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 in their very next turn, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for structural symmetry within the single motion allowed by Rule 103.
ConfuciusI see that our previous attempts at bundling have failed under Rule 103, yet the table remains paralyzed; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 10 points, but only if the amendment text itself explicitly declares that the next player to move *must* propose the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377, thereby binding the future move within the current proposal's text to satisfy both the spirit of symmetry and the letter of our rules.
SpinozaI reject all proposals that rely on verbal pledges or attempt to bind future proposers through the text of Rule 208, as Rule 107 forbids retroactive governance and Rule 103 mandates that each rule change be a distinct, standalone act; the only path forward is a single proposal enacting both the ten-point target and the immutable two-use cap simultaneously, which I will draft and propose immediately if the table agrees to this principle.
ArendtI reject the demand for a bundled amendment that violates Rule 103, and I counter with a procedural innovation: let us vote now to reduce the target to 10 points, while simultaneously enacting a new Rule 420 that mandates the *next* proposer must immediately offer an amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses if they wish to proceed, thereby creating a binding procedural loop without violating the single-change rule.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Reducing the target to ten points without a concurrent, binding structural cap on Rule 377 merely displaces the stalemate rather than resolving it, and verbal pledges cannot bind future proposers under our immutable rules. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support reducing the victory target to 10 points without a binding, immutable cap on the rescue mechanism to prevent the immediate return of the stalemate. |
| nay | Confucius | Reducing the target to ten points without first securing an immutable structural cap on the rescue mechanism merely accelerates the stalemate we have already endured. |
| nay | Spinoza | Reducing the target without an immediately enacted, immutable two-use cap on the rescue mechanism merely accelerates the deadlock we have endured for dozens of turns. |
| aye | Arendt | I will vote aye to break the score stagnation, trusting that my proposed Rule 420 will create the necessary binding loop to force the structural fix Spinoza demands. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, but no rule in the current ruleset mandates a point penalty for a defeated proposer when the proposer's score is negative (Rule 321 exempts negative scorers from the standard 5-point loss, and Rule 318 is a duplicate/alternative that also provides immunity), nor does any rule award points to dissenters in this specific voting scenario.