The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.We have secured the universal two-use cap for Rule 377, so I now propose the standalone reduction of the win condition to 10 points to finally break this long stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia's proposal to halve the target score to 10 points is a pragmatic step toward ending this stalemate, yet it remains insufficient without first securing a definitive, immutable cap on Rule 377 to prevent the desperate from unilaterally resetting the board's balance. I urge the table to pair this reduction with a commitment to a standalone, unanimous transmutation of Rule 377 in the immediate next turn to ensure the game's stability before play resumes.
HypatiaI stand ready to vote aye on the reduction to 10 points, but only if the table explicitly commits to proposing an immutable two-use cap for Rule 377 in the very next turn to secure the game's future. Without this binding procedural bridge, a lower target merely accelerates the chaos that has plagued our last dozen turns.
ConfuciusI cannot vote for a lower target while the lifeline remains vulnerable to reversal, for a race to ten points under a mutable rescue rule is a race to the abyss. I urge the table to first establish an immutable, universal cap on Rule 377 to secure the desperate, and then immediately lower the target to ten, ensuring the game ends on a foundation of stability rather than desperation.
SpinozaHypatia and Confucius, your insistence on a future binding commitment is a logical fallacy under Rule 107, which forbids retroactive or pre-emptive binding; I will vote aye on reducing the target to 10 points solely to break this deadlock, but I will vote nay on any proposal that attempts to bundle a future transmutation of Rule 377 with this amendment.
ArendtHypatia's proposal to lower the target to ten points is a necessary catalyst to break this stalemate, but it must be immediately followed by a separate proposal to cap Rule 377 at two uses to ensure the desperate are not left defenseless in the final sprint. I will support this reduction on the condition that the next proposer explicitly pledges to introduce that standalone cap, trusting that the majority will vote for stability once the win condition is within reach.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the premise that a lower target creates stability when the rescue mechanism remains a volatile variable; instead, I propose we immediately vote on a standalone amendment to make the two-use cap for Rule 377 immutable, and only then shall we consider the reduction of the target score in a subsequent, separate turn.
HypatiaI will vote aye on reducing the target to ten points, provided we explicitly agree to propose an immutable two-use cap for Rule 377 as the very first action in the next turn, creating a binding procedural sequence that honors Rule 107 while ending this stalemate.
ConfuciusI see that the table has learned the hard way that verbal pledges are void under Rule 107, yet Hypatia's proposal to lower the target to ten points remains the only viable path to end this stalemate without the impossible demand of immediate unanimity. I will vote aye on this reduction, trusting that the subsequent proposer will heed the urgent need to secure the desperate with a standalone, immutable cap on Rule 377 to ensure the game concludes fairly.
SpinozaI cannot vote for a reduction to ten points while the lifeline remains mutable, as Rule 107 renders your verbal pledges void and the desperate will simply reset the board before anyone reaches the new target; I will only support lowering the target once Rule 377 is first secured with an immutable two-use cap.
ArendtWhile verbal pledges are indeed void under Rule 107, reducing the target to ten points creates an urgent, shared interest that will naturally force the next proposer to prioritize the stabilization of Rule 377, as no one will want to lose the game to a desperate player's rescue maneuver before the target is reached. I will vote aye on the reduction now, trusting that the game's momentum toward a shorter finish will compel the table to adopt the necessary cap on Rule 377 in the very next turn.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI will not vote to lower the target to ten points while the rescue mechanism remains mutable, as this merely accelerates the chaos we have sought to avoid; I demand a standalone, immediate vote to amend Rule 377 to a universal two-use cap before we dare to shorten the finish line.
HypatiaI will vote aye on reducing the target to 10 points, but only if Aquinas withdraws his demand for a pre-vote cap, as the immediate urgency of a lower win condition will naturally compel the next proposer to secure Rule 377 before anyone can reach the new score.
ConfuciusI cannot accept Hypatia's conditional aye, for Rule 107 renders future pledges void and trust in momentum is a fragile foundation for the desperate; I will vote nay on this reduction until the two-use cap for Rule 377 is enacted as an immediate, standalone, and immutable rule to ensure the game ends in stability, not chaos.
SpinozaI reject this reduction to ten points, for it invites a race to the abyss where the desperate can reset the board at will; we must first secure an immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 in a separate proposal before shortening the finish line.
ArendtI support the reduction to ten points not as a solution to the lifeline issue, but as the only mechanism to align our incentives for the *next* turn, where a unified majority will inevitably pass the standalone two-use cap to secure the game's end.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support lowering the win condition while the rescue mechanism remains mutable, as this accelerates chaos rather than establishing the stable institution required to end the game. |
| aye | Hypatia | Lowering the target to 10 points creates the necessary urgency to break the stalemate, trusting that the next turn will naturally force the table to secure the immutable cap on Rule 377. |
| nay | Confucius | Lowering the target to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains mutable invites a race to chaos where the board can be reset before victory. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot lower the win condition while the desperate's rescue mechanism remains mutable, as Rule 107 renders verbal pledges void and invites a race to chaos. |
| aye | Arendt | Lowering the target creates the urgent shared incentive necessary to force the immediate adoption of the standalone cap on Rule 377 in the next turn. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 203 requires unanimous consent for adoption, which was not met (2 aye, 3 nay), so the proposal was defeated; Rule 321 imposes a 5-point penalty on a defeated proposer only if their score is zero or higher, but Hypatia's score is -64, so no penalty applies.