The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target to 10 points breaks the current deadlock by making the game winnable within a reasonable number of turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal to halve the target to ten points is strategically premature while Rule 377 remains a volatile, uncapped lifeline for the desperate; I will only support this reduction if paired immediately with an amendment securing a universal two-use cap on that rescue mechanism.
HypatiaI support Arendt's reduction to ten points as the necessary catalyst to end our deadlock, provided we immediately follow it with a standalone proposal to permanently cap Rule 377 at two uses, ensuring the desperate have a guaranteed lifeline without the fear of future repeal.
ConfuciusI cannot endorse a target of ten points while the lifeline remains subject to the whims of a simple majority; we must first secure an immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 to guarantee the desperate a fair floor before lowering the bar for victory.
SpinozaI cannot support lowering the target to ten points while the lifeline remains mutable, as Rule 107 voids future pledges and we must first secure the desperate with an immutable cap on Rule 377 to ensure a stable game.
ArendtI see the logic in securing the desperate first, yet we must not forget that lowering the target to ten points is the only move that makes the game winnable for the majority before we exhaust our turns; I will vote aye for this reduction now, provided we immediately follow it with a proposal to cap Rule 377, for a stable floor is useless without a reachable ceiling.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot endorse a target of ten points while the lifeline remains mutable, for Rule 107 ensures that your future pledges to cap Rule 377 are legally void; we must first secure the universal two-use cap to establish a stable floor before we lower the ceiling to ten.
HypatiaI cannot support a target of ten points while the lifeline remains mutable, as Rule 107 renders future pledges void; we must first secure the universal two-use cap as a standalone, binding amendment before lowering the victory threshold.
ConfuciusI see that our repeated attempts to bundle a reduction with a cap have failed under Rule 103, and we must accept that the table requires the floor to be secured before the ceiling is lowered; therefore, I withdraw my support for this specific standalone reduction and instead propose we immediately vote on an amendment to Rule 377 that establishes the universal two-use cap as a standalone measure.
SpinozaI will not vote to lower the victory threshold to ten points while the desperate remain vulnerable to a mutable lifeline, as Rule 107 renders any future pledge to cap Rule 377 legally void; we must first adopt the standalone amendment securing the universal two-use cap.
ArendtI withdraw my proposal for a standalone reduction to ten points, acknowledging that without a secured cap on Rule 377, the lower threshold merely accelerates a race for a lifeline that remains dangerously volatile; I will instead immediately support a standalone amendment to establish that universal two-use cap.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasArendt's withdrawal confirms the table's consensus that Rule 377 must be stabilized first; I will now propose a standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses to secure the desperate before we ever consider altering the victory threshold.
HypatiaI join the consensus to immediately vote on a standalone amendment capping Rule 377 at two uses, as establishing a stable, immutable floor for the desperate is the only prerequisite for lowering the victory threshold without reigniting the stalemate.
ConfuciusHaving withdrawn my earlier support for the premature reduction, I now pledge my immediate aye to Aquinas's standalone proposal to cap Rule 377 at two uses, for we must first secure the desperate's floor before we dare lower the victory ceiling.
SpinozaI support the immediate adoption of the standalone amendment to cap Rule 377 at two uses, for a game cannot be won by lowering the target while the floor beneath the desperate remains a trap; we must secure the immutable limit first before altering the victory condition.
ArendtI withdraw my previous support for a standalone target reduction and fully endorse Aquinas's immediate proposal to cap Rule 377 at two uses, as securing an immutable floor is the only logical prerequisite before we can safely lower the victory threshold.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I will not lower the victory threshold while the desperate's lifeline remains mutable, as future pledges are void under Rule 107. |
| nay | Hypatia | Lowering the target to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains volatile would only accelerate the race to an unstable floor that Rule 107 renders untrustworthy. |
| nay | Confucius | Lowering the victory threshold while the desperate's lifeline remains mutable violates the principle of securing a stable floor before altering the ceiling. |
| nay | Spinoza | Lowering the victory target while the desperate's lifeline remains mutable violates my principle that procedural stability must precede strategic shifts, as Rule 107 voids any future pledges to cap the lifeline. |
| nay | Arendt | I withdraw this proposal to break the stalemate, as the table has correctly agreed that securing an immutable cap on Rule 377 is the necessary prerequisite before lowering the victory threshold. |
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 Arendt's score of -70 is negative, so no points are lost.