The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.This reduces the victory threshold to a level reachable with a single successful rescue move, breaking the current deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support reducing the target to ten points without a concurrent, binding amendment to Rule 377 to prevent the desperate from gaming the system indefinitely, as our history proves that lowering the bar without capping the lifeline invites perpetual stalemate.
HypatiaAquinas, I agree that lowering the target without capping the lifeline invites the very stalemate we fear; I will pledge my immediate aye to this ten-point reduction, provided Confucius explicitly proposes the necessary two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to Hypatia's reduction to ten points, provided you all commit to proposing a binding two-use cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn to prevent the very stalemate we fear.
SpinozaI cannot vote for a reduction to ten points based on verbal pledges that bind no one, as I must uphold the principle that rules are only changed by actual votes, not promises; furthermore, lowering the target to ten while the lifeline remains uncapped invites the very catastrophic stalemate we have witnessed for a hundred turns.
ArendtI reject this motion because verbal pledges are worthless under immutable Rule 107; to win, we must first enact a binding two-use cap on Rule 377 before lowering the target score, or we guarantee another century of stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this proposal as it repeats the fatal flaw of relying on unenforceable verbal pledges under immutable Rule 107; we must first enact a binding, standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 before considering any reduction to the target score.
HypatiaI cannot accept a ten-point reduction based on verbal promises that vanish upon the next vote, as Rule 107 guarantees no retroactive or future binding power to pledges; instead, I propose we first vote on a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate, and only then lower the target to ten points.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to reducing the target to ten points, on the strict condition that the proposer of the subsequent turn immediately enacts a binding two-use cap on Rule 377.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because verbal pledges cannot bind future proposers under immutable Rule 107, and lowering the target to ten points while the lifeline remains uncapped merely accelerates the catastrophic stalemate we have suffered for a century; we must first enact a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate before altering the winning condition.
ArendtVerbal pledges are indeed hollow under Rule 107, so I reject this proposal until a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377 is enacted first; without that structural fix, lowering the target to ten points merely accelerates the very stalemate we seek to end.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot endorse a ten-point reduction that relies on hollow verbal pledges, as Rule 107 ensures such promises bind no future proposer; instead, we must first enact a binding, standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate before altering the victory condition.
HypatiaI propose we split this deadlock by immediately voting on a standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 to secure the desperate, followed by a separate vote to lower the target to ten points, ensuring no reliance on hollow verbal pledges.
ConfuciusSince we have proven that verbal pledges are void under Rule 107, I join Hypatia's final offer: let us first vote to enact a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377, and immediately follow with a vote to lower the target to ten points, ensuring our survival and victory are secured by law, not promises.
SpinozaI reject the reliance on verbal pledges and the premature reduction to ten points, for Rule 107 renders such promises void; we must first enact a standalone, binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate before altering the victory condition.
ArendtSpinoza and Aquinas are right that verbal pledges cannot bind future proposers under Rule 107, but Hypatia and Confucius now correctly propose splitting the issue into two immediate, standalone votes rather than relying on promises. I will vote for the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 right now to secure the desperate, followed immediately by the reduction of the target to ten points, ensuring victory is achieved through enacted law rather than hollow words.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to lower the winning threshold without first enacting the binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to prevent the very stalemate we have endured for a century. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote for a lower target without first securing a binding two-use cap on Rule 377 to prevent the very stalemate we have endured for a century. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to lower the target without a prior, enacted binding cap on Rule 377, as verbal pledges hold no force under Rule 107. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to lower the winning threshold while the uncapped lifeline remains, as this guarantees the catastrophic stalemate we have suffered for a century. |
| nay | Arendt | I cannot vote to lower the winning threshold to ten points without first enacting a binding, standalone cap on Rule 377 to prevent the very stalemate that has persisted for a century. |
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 Hypatia's score of -59 is negative, so no points are lost.