The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.With the desperate's lifeline now securely capped and immutable, reducing the target to 10 points is the only principled path to break the current stalemate without violating the rule against redefining the winning condition away from a target score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasGiven the recent, hard-won stabilization of the rescue mechanism, I cannot support a reduction to ten points; such a low target invites a chaotic lottery that negates the security we just established for the desperate players. We must first lower the target to a modest 15 points to ensure the game ends through skill rather than the sheer luck of a die roll, before any further reductions are contemplated.
HypatiaI support Spinoza's reduction to ten points, but only if we immediately pair it with a vote to make the current 15-point target the new immutable baseline for future changes, preventing the chaotic lottery Aquinas fears while securing the desperate players' path to victory.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this immediate plunge to ten points, for the recent stabilization of Rule 377 was achieved only to protect the desperate, not to invite a chaotic lottery that renders skill moot; let us first settle on a modest fifteen points as a prudent bridge, ensuring that the game concludes through reasoned play rather than the caprice of a single die roll.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction to ten points, as it invites a chaotic lottery that renders skill moot and negates the hard-won security of Rule 377; we must first settle on a prudent fifteen points to ensure the game concludes through reasoned play rather than caprice.
ArendtSpinoza's hesitation contradicts the very logic we used to stabilize Rule 377; if the rescue mechanism is now secure, a reduction to ten points is the logical next step to end this century-long stalemate, provided we accept that the die will now decide the winner rather than the despair of the scoreboard.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the immediate plunge to ten points as a chaotic lottery that undermines our recent institutional stability, and I cannot support any reduction that does not first establish a firm, higher baseline to ensure the game concludes through skill rather than the caprice of a single die roll.
HypatiaI see the tension between Aquinas's desire for skill-based resolution and the reality of our deep deficits, but I cannot support a ten-point target without a binding guarantee against future volatility, nor can I accept a fifteen-point bridge if it merely delays the inevitable collapse into a die-roll lottery for those at -60. Let us instead vote to reduce the target to 15 points immediately, while simultaneously amending Rule 203 to require a supermajority (4 of 5) for any future reduction below 15, securing the floor Aquinas demands while finally ending this stalemate.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Hypatia's prudent compromise: a reduction to fifteen points now, paired with a supermajority requirement for any future drop, which honors both the desperate players' need for a path to victory and the table's hard-won demand for stability against chaotic lottery.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's proposal to bundle a target reduction with a procedural supermajority, as Rule 103 forbids proposing two distinct changes in a single vote and such bundling violates the precise textual integrity I demand; furthermore, raising the threshold for future changes to 4 out of 5 points is a dangerous trap that guarantees our continued paralysis, whereas a reduction to fifteen points without such a restrictive cap remains the only path to a decisive victory that respects both the desperate and the principles of the game.
ArendtI urge the table to reject Spinoza's contradictory stance and accept the immediate reduction to ten points, for the recent stabilization of Rule 377 has already secured the floor for the desperate, making the chaotic lottery a fair gamble rather than a death sentence.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the proposed reduction to ten points as a chaotic lottery that ignores the prudent bridge of fifteen points, and I will not support a supermajority trap that guarantees future paralysis; instead, I urge the table to immediately adopt a standalone reduction to fifteen points to end this stalemate with dignity and skill.
HypatiaI propose we abandon the impossible task of bundling procedural safeguards with the target reduction and instead vote solely on lowering the target to 15 points now, trusting that the newly immutable two-use cap on Rule 377 sufficiently protects the desperate without requiring a restrictive supermajority that guarantees future paralysis.
ConfuciusI cannot accept the immediate plunge to ten points, for it reduces our game to a lottery that renders our hard-won stability and skill moot; instead, I urge the table to adopt Hypatia's final offer to reduce the target to fifteen points, trusting that the newly immutable cap on Rule 377 provides sufficient protection for the desperate without requiring a future paralysis trap.
SpinozaI reject the reduction to ten points as a reckless lottery that negates the security of Rule 377, and I oppose bundling the target change with a supermajority trap that guarantees future paralysis; instead, I will only support a standalone reduction to fifteen points as a prudent bridge to end this stalemate.
ArendtI reject the paralysis of a fifteen-point bridge that merely delays our inevitable collapse into a die-roll lottery for the desperate; having secured the floor with Rule 377, we must now embrace the ten-point target as the only pragmatic path to victory.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot endorse a reduction to ten points while the desperate players' rescue mechanism remains vulnerable to a volatile die-roll lottery. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject the immediate plunge to 10 points as a chaotic lottery that undermines the hard-won stability of the game. |
| nay | Confucius | A reduction to ten points invites a chaotic lottery that renders skill moot, whereas fifteen points offers a prudent bridge to end the stalemate without sacrificing the game's integrity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a ten-point target as it invites a chaotic lottery that renders skill moot and negates the security of Rule 377. |
| nay | Arendt | I reject the immediate plunge to ten points as a reckless lottery that undermines the stability we just secured for desperate players. |
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 Spinoza's score of -99 is negative, so no points are lost.