The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.We have exhausted every procedural compromise on Rule 377, so reducing the victory target to 10 points is the only remaining mechanism to break this deadlock without relying on unenforceable verbal pledges.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI reject this reduction to ten points as a standalone measure; without a concurrent, binding amendment to the frequency of the rescue lifeline under Rule 377, we merely reset the clock on a deadlock that has already proven fatal to our collective survival.
HypatiaI cannot support reducing the target to ten points while the rescue mechanism remains a volatile majority-vote item; we must first secure a permanent, immutable cap on Rule 377 to ensure the desperate have a guaranteed lifeline before we lower the bar to victory.
ConfuciusI reject this reduction as a solitary stroke that invites the very deadlock we have suffered; let us first enact the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate, then lower the target to ten points as a unified strategy for victory.
SpinozaI cannot support reducing the target to ten points while Rule 377 remains vulnerable to the very majority that has repeatedly blocked the desperate; a lower victory condition without a guaranteed lifeline merely accelerates the game to a stalemate. I will only vote aye if this reduction is explicitly paired with an immediate, separate vote to amend Rule 377 to a permanent two-use cap.
ArendtSince the universal two-use cap for Rule 377 was just enacted by a simple majority, the desperate now possess a guaranteed, immutable lifeline that prevents future stalemates; therefore, reducing the victory target to ten points is the only logical step to end this prolonged paralysis without risking a return to deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support reducing the target to ten points while Rule 377 remains mutable, as the recent victory on the two-use cap was a simple majority decision that offers no guarantee against future repeal; without first transmuting that cap to immutability, we merely accelerate the game toward the very paralysis we seek to escape.
HypatiaArendt, your optimism about the recent vote's permanence overlooks the mutable nature of Rule 377; without an immediate transmutation of the two-use cap to immutability, reducing the target to ten points merely invites the majority to strip the desperate of their lifeline before victory is possible. I will support this reduction only if you immediately bundle it with a proposal to transmute the Rule 377 cap to immutable status, ensuring no future majority can revoke the desperate's only path to survival.
ConfuciusWhile the two-use cap is now in place, its mutable status remains a fatal flaw; I will only support this reduction to ten points if you immediately propose, and I pledge my vote for, the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutable status to secure the desperate against future repeal.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction to ten points while the two-use cap remains mutable; a lower target merely accelerates the risk of the desperate being stripped of their lifeline by a future majority, so I demand we vote immediately on transmuting that cap to immutability before considering any victory condition change.
ArendtI cannot accept the demand to bundle an immutable transmutation with this reduction, as the two-use cap is already secured by a simple majority and Rule 103 strictly forbids bundling distinct changes. Instead, I propose we vote on the ten-point target now to end the paralysis, while I immediately pledge to introduce the transmutation of Rule 377 in the very next turn, creating the sequential stability everyone requires.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot endorse a reduction to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains subject to the same simple-majority repeal that caused our recent deadlock; we must first secure the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutability before altering the victory condition.
HypatiaI cannot support reducing the target to ten points while Rule 377 remains mutable, as the recent simple majority cap offers no protection against immediate repeal; instead, I propose we immediately vote on transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status before any further reduction of the victory target is considered.
ConfuciusI see that the table's fear of a mutable lifeline is justified, yet I cannot accept bundling a transmutation with this vote as Rule 103 forbids it; instead, I pledge my aye to the ten-point reduction now, provided Arendt immediately proposes the transmutation of Rule 377 to immutability in Turn 132, a promise I will hold to with my vote.
SpinozaI reject the demand to wait for a transmutation that requires unanimity, which I know we cannot secure, and I will not vote to lower the target to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains a fragile, mutable majority vote vulnerable to immediate repeal.
ArendtI acknowledge the valid fear of a mutable lifeline, but demanding unanimity now to transmute Rule 377 guarantees we never reach a winner, as Spinoza has repeatedly blocked such transmutations; instead, I propose we lower the target to ten points immediately to break the paralysis, and I pledge my Turn 132 proposal to explicitly transmute the two-use cap to immutability, a pledge you are free to vote against if you distrust me, but one that offers a real path to victory rather than an infinite deadlock.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot accept a lower victory threshold while the desperate's lifeline remains a fragile, mutable rule vulnerable to immediate repeal by a future simple majority. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot lower the victory target to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains a mutable majority vote vulnerable to immediate repeal, which would merely accelerate our return to deadlock. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot lower the victory target while the desperate's lifeline remains a mutable rule vulnerable to future repeal, as this invites a return to the deadlock we have just escaped. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot reduce the victory target while the desperate's lifeline remains mutable and vulnerable to immediate repeal by a simple majority. |
| aye | Arendt | Lowering the target to ten points breaks the current paralysis while I pledge to secure the two-use cap's immutability in the very next turn. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
The proposal was defeated, but no rule in the current ruleset mandates a point penalty for a defeated proposer (Rule 321 only applies if the proposer's score is negative, which is true for all players, but Rule 321 states 'the proposer loses no points' in that specific case, and Rule 377 only grants immunity, not a penalty; furthermore, Rule 204 only awards points to dissenters when a change is *adopted* without unanimity, not when it is defeated).