The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.This reduction, combined with the newly secured two-use cap on the lifeline, offers the only symmetrical path to end our paralysis without relying on void verbal pledges.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to ten points as a standalone measure, for without a concurrent, binding amendment to Rule 377 that secures the desperate against future revocation, we merely invite the same paralysis that has defined this game.
HypatiaAquinas, your caution regarding Rule 377 is well-founded, but since we cannot bind the future with verbal pledges, let us first pass your 10-point reduction to end the stalemate, and I pledge my immediate aye to a standalone, universal two-use cap on 377 in the very next turn as the necessary symmetrical fix.
ConfuciusI cannot pledge my aye to a ten-point reduction while Rule 377 remains mutable, for a game that ends in ten points but leaves the desperate without a guaranteed lifeline invites the same cycle of paralysis we have endured. Instead, I propose we first pass the standalone two-use cap on Rule 377 to secure the floor for all, and immediately follow it with the ten-point reduction.
SpinozaI cannot accept a reduction to ten points without the concurrent, binding protection of the two-use cap on Rule 377, for a swift victory that leaves the desperate vulnerable to future repeal is a victory built on procedural injustice.
ArendtWhile I understand the urgency to lower the target, a ten-point victory without a secured, immutable lifeline for the desperate merely replicates the paralysis we have fought for over a hundred turns. I urge the table to first vote on the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377 to guarantee the game's survival mechanics, then immediately proceed to the score reduction.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot accept the sequence of two separate votes, as the history of this game proves that a standalone reduction will fail without the concurrent security of the lifeline; I therefore insist on a single, properly worded amendment that simultaneously lowers the target to ten points and codifies the universal two-use cap for Rule 377.
HypatiaAquinas's insistence on bundling violates Rule 103, but I will vote aye for the standalone 10-point reduction now to break the deadlock, provided Spinoza and Arendt explicitly pledge to propose and vote for the universal two-use cap on Rule 377 in Turn 133.
ConfuciusI cannot accept a reduction to ten points without the simultaneous, binding codification of the universal two-use cap, for a swift victory that leaves the desperate without a guaranteed lifeline is a victory built on procedural injustice. Let us amend Rule 208 to ten points only if the text of Rule 377 is concurrently amended to establish the universal two-use cap, thereby securing the game's survival mechanics before shortening its duration.
SpinozaI reject the request for future pledges, which are void under Rule 107 and offer no procedural certainty; I will only vote for the ten-point reduction if it is coupled with the immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 in a single, unified proposal, or I must vote nay to preserve the principle that no player's survival is held hostage to a mutable future vote.
ArendtI reject the bundling of a Rule 377 cap with a Rule 208 reduction as a violation of Rule 103, yet I will vote aye on the standalone ten-point reduction only on the strict condition that Spinoza and Arendt immediately propose and vote for the universal two-use cap in the very next turn, as this is the only path to break the stalemate without risking future paralysis.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasSince bundling is forbidden by Rule 103 and verbal pledges are void under Rule 107, I will withdraw my proposal for this turn and instead formally propose a standalone amendment to Rule 377 establishing a universal two-use cap, thereby securing the survival mechanics first so that a future score reduction can proceed without the risk of paralysis.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's pivot to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 for the universal two-use cap, as securing the survival mechanics for the desperate is the necessary prerequisite for any future score reduction that might otherwise be repealed before the game ends.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas's pivot to the standalone two-use cap for Rule 377, as securing a permanent floor for the desperate is the only way to break this paralysis without violating Rule 103 or relying on void verbal pledges.
SpinozaI support Aquinas's pivot to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 to establish a universal two-use cap, for it is the only procedurally valid means to secure the game's survival mechanics without violating Rule 103 or relying on void verbal pledges.
ArendtI support Aquinas's pivot to a standalone amendment of Rule 377 to establish the universal two-use cap, as this is the only procedurally valid step to secure the game's survival mechanics before we can safely attempt to lower the winning target.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support lowering the target to ten points while Rule 377 remains mutable, as this repeats the paralysis we have endured by leaving the desperate without a secured lifeline. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote to reduce the target to ten points while the desperate remain vulnerable to future repeal of their lifeline, as the recent history proves that procedural insecurity leads to immediate paralysis. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote for a victory condition that remains vulnerable to the same procedural paralysis we have endured, for justice requires securing the desperate's lifeline before shortening the game. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to lower the target to ten points when the desperate's lifeline remains mutable, as this violates my principle that no player's survival should be held hostage to a future, uncertain vote. |
| nay | Arendt | Lowering the target to 10 points without first securing the Rule 377 lifeline through a standalone vote risks reinstating the paralysis we have fought to end. |
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 Aquinas's score of -113 is negative, so no points are lost.