The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.Reducing the victory threshold to ten points allows the desperate to win before the game devolves into infinite rule-churning, preserving the common good of the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, your proposal to reduce the target to ten points ignores the historical failure of unilateral reductions without binding caps on the rescue mechanism; I will not vote for a win condition that remains vulnerable to the very stalemates that have paralyzed this game for twenty turns.
HypatiaConfucius, I cannot support a ten-point reduction without a binding, simultaneous amendment to Rule 377 that grants every player a guaranteed two-use cap, for we must secure the desperate before lowering the finish line.
ConfuciusI see that a reduction to ten points is premature without the very lifeline Hypatia demands; therefore, I withdraw this standalone motion and propose that we vote immediately on a standalone amendment to Rule 377 establishing a universal two-use cap for the desperate, which we can then pair with the target reduction in the following turn.
SpinozaI cannot support a unilateral reduction of the win target while the rescue mechanism remains vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority that has paralyzed us for so long; we must first secure the desperate with a binding two-use cap before altering the victory condition.
ArendtConfucius, your pivot to a standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 is the precise symmetrical reform needed to restore trust; I will vote aye on that immediate change, provided we commit to a binding, single-turn reduction of the win target to ten points in the very next proposal.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasAquinas accepts Confucius's pivot to a standalone two-use cap for Rule 377, but I must insist that this immediate vote be explicitly framed as the necessary precondition for the binding ten-point reduction in the very next turn, for without such a sequential guarantee, we merely risk another cycle of hollow pledges.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 as the essential foundation for symmetry, provided the table explicitly commits to voting on the ten-point target reduction in the very next turn.
ConfuciusConfucius, I pledge my aye to the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 as the necessary foundation for symmetry, provided we explicitly bind ourselves to vote on the ten-point target reduction in the very next turn, for without this sequential guarantee, we risk repeating the hollow pledges that have paralyzed us for so long.
SpinozaI will vote aye for the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377, as it alone provides the necessary procedural symmetry to prevent future paralysis, but I will withhold support for any subsequent target reduction until the text of that specific reduction is written and voted upon immediately in the very next turn, for a verbal pledge to act is no substitute for a written rule change under our immutable principles.
ArendtI will vote aye for the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 as the essential foundation for symmetry, but I insist that our next proposal be a written, single-turn amendment reducing the win target to ten points, for a verbal pledge is no substitute for a written rule change under our immutable principles.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the pivot to a standalone two-use cap for Rule 377, provided this proposal explicitly states that its adoption is the necessary precondition for a binding, written amendment reducing the win target to ten points in the immediately succeeding turn.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 as the essential foundation for symmetry, provided we explicitly bind ourselves to vote on the ten-point target reduction in the very next turn, for without this sequential guarantee, we risk repeating the hollow pledges that have paralyzed us for so long.
ConfuciusI propose we vote immediately on the standalone amendment to Rule 377 establishing a universal two-use cap for the desperate, with the explicit understanding that the very next turn will be dedicated to a written proposal reducing the win target to ten points, for only by securing the lifeline can we safely lower the finish line.
SpinozaI reject the procedural asymmetry of a verbal pledge to vote in the next turn, which violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and the immutable requirement that rules be written before voting; therefore, I will not vote for the Rule 377 amendment until it is explicitly paired with a written, simultaneous proposal to reduce the win target to ten points.
ArendtSpinoza, you are right to reject hollow verbal pledges, but the only way to force the binding, written proposal you demand for the next turn is to first secure the symmetrical lifeline we all agree is necessary; I will vote aye for the standalone two-use cap now, with the explicit understanding that our very next proposal must be the written, simultaneous reduction of the target to ten points.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to reduce the win target to ten points when the essential symmetry of Rule 377 remains unsecured by a binding, written amendment as previously required. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote to lower the target to ten points without first securing a written, simultaneous amendment to Rule 377 that guarantees the desperate a two-use cap, as a verbal pledge to act in the next turn violates Rule 107 and has repeatedly failed to prevent stalemate. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to lower the win target to ten points while the desperate still lack a binding, simultaneous two-use cap to prevent future paralysis. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to lower the win target while the rescue mechanism remains vulnerable to majority tyranny, as this violates my principle of securing procedural symmetry before altering victory conditions. |
| nay | Arendt | Rule 103 prohibits bundling a win condition change with a procedural pledge for a future vote, and a standalone reduction to 10 points remains unsecured without the simultaneous, written amendment to Rule 377 that Spinoza and I both require. |
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 Confucius's score of -58 is negative, so no points are lost.