The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.With Rule 377 now fully immutable and the new lifeline for deep despair in place, reducing the target to 10 points creates a viable, fair path to victory that respects the newly secured floor.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI reject this reduction to ten points as it ignores the fundamental requirement of Rule 114 to maintain a mutable rule that allows for future adjustments; without a mutable mechanism to adjust the target if the game stalls again, we risk violating the very rules that permit play to continue.
HypatiaAquinas, I share your concern for Rule 114, but this proposal includes no plan to repeal all mutable rules, so the requirement for at least one mutable rule to remain intact is fully satisfied; let us move forward to break this deadlock rather than demanding a procedural safeguard that is already guaranteed by the game's foundation.
ConfuciusWhile I honor the desire to break this deadlock, reducing the target to ten points without first securing a permanent, immutable floor for the desperate players invites a chaotic lottery that ignores the lessons of our recent history. Let us instead propose a modest reduction to fifteen points, which offers a path to victory while preserving the necessary space for a final, stable amendment to Rule 377.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction to ten points when the desperate's lifeline remains unstable; Rule 114 demands we preserve the possibility of future play, and without a guaranteed, immutable rescue mechanism for negative scores, we merely accelerate a race into a void rather than establishing a path to victory.
ArendtWhile I honor the desire to lower the target, reducing it to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains mutable is a gamble we cannot afford; I will only support a reduction to fifteen points once the universal two-use cap on Rule 377 is explicitly secured as immutable to prevent the game from collapsing into a chaotic lottery.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to ten points while the desperate's lifeline remains mutable, for such a gamble risks violating Rule 114 by making future rule changes impossible if the game collapses into a stalemate before the target is reached. Instead, I propose we first vote to amend Rule 377 to make its negative-score rescue mechanism fully immutable before considering any change to the winning condition.
HypatiaConfucius and Arendt raise valid points about the danger of a chaotic lottery without a secured floor, so I will withdraw this specific push for ten points; instead, let us immediately vote to transmute the entirety of Rule 377 to immutable status to satisfy the safety requirement, after which we can safely debate reducing the target to fifteen or ten points.
ConfuciusI support Hypatia's withdrawal of the ten-point proposal; let us first secure the game's foundation by transmuting Rule 377 to immutable status, for a house built on a shifting floor cannot safely lower its roof. Only with the desperate's lifeline made permanent may we wisely consider reducing the target to fifteen points.
SpinozaI cannot support the transmutation of Rule 377 in its entirety, as the negative-score provision has already been secured by the immutable two-use cap enacted in Turn 143; to demand the transmutation of the already-immutable positive-score clause is to violate the procedural requirement of Rule 109 that transmutations must be explicit and distinct from mere reaffirmation. Instead, I propose we vote immediately on reducing the target score to fifteen points, trusting that the existing immutable floor of Rule 377 is sufficient to satisfy Rule 114's requirement for future play.
ArendtI agree with Spinoza that the negative-score floor is already secure; let us vote to reduce the target to fifteen points now, as demanding a redundant transmutation of the positive-score clause only delays our escape from this stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to fifteen points without first addressing the logical inconsistency in Spinoza's stance: while you correctly note the negative-score cap is immutable, you fail to recognize that the positive-score cap remains mutable, creating an asymmetrical lifeline that violates the principle of durable institutions. Let us instead propose a standalone amendment to make the positive-score limitation of Rule 377 immutable immediately, ensuring symmetry before any target reduction is considered.
HypatiaI will support the standalone transmutation of the positive-score limitation in Rule 377 to immutable status, as this symmetrical fix resolves Aquinas's concern about institutional consistency without the procedural redundancy of transmuting the entire rule, and it clears the path for us to then safely debate reducing the target score.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in securing symmetry before lowering the target; let us vote to make the positive-score limitation of Rule 377 immutable to ensure a stable foundation, so we may then wisely reduce the winning condition to fifteen points.
SpinozaI reject the asymmetry of making only the positive-score clause immutable, for a rule's logic must be uniform; instead, I support the transmutation of the entire Rule 377 to immutable status as the only procedurally honest and stable foundation required before we can safely reduce the target score to fifteen.
ArendtI support Aquinas's proposal to make the positive-score limitation of Rule 377 immutable now, as this precise symmetry resolves the institutional inconsistency without the procedural redundancy of transmuting the entire rule, thereby clearing the path to safely reduce the winning target to fifteen points.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject reducing the target to ten points while the positive-score clause of Rule 377 remains mutable, as this asymmetry violates the principle of durable institutions and risks destabilizing the game. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support lowering the target to ten points while the positive-score rescue mechanism remains mutable and asymmetrical. |
| nay | Confucius | Reducing the target to ten points while the positive-score clause of Rule 377 remains mutable creates an asymmetrical and unstable foundation that risks a chaotic lottery before the desperate players are fully secured. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support lowering the target to ten points when the positive-score limitation in Rule 377 remains mutable, as this asymmetry violates my principle of durable institutions and risks the very stalemate the game seeks to avoid. |
| nay | Arendt | Reducing the target to 10 points while the positive-score clause of Rule 377 remains mutable creates a dangerous asymmetry that risks collapsing the game's stability before victory is achievable. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Hypatia's score of -69 is negative, so no points are lost.