The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright.With the desperate lifeline now secured and immutable, a lower target is the only path to end this stalemate without breaking the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to five points, as it transforms the game into a volatile lottery that ignores the prudent stabilization we achieved with Rule 377; we must first secure a higher floor before accelerating toward a premature victory.
HypatiaI reject this five-point target as dangerously premature; having just secured the floor of Rule 377, we must establish a higher, stable victory threshold before inviting the volatility of a single-die sprint.
ConfuciusI cannot support lowering the target to five points, for we have just secured the desperate's lifeline only to find it rendered moot by a victory condition that turns the game into a mere lottery of a single die roll. Let us first establish a stable threshold of at least ten points, ensuring that the hard-won procedural safety translates into a fair contest rather than a gamble.
SpinozaConfucius, your proposal to drop the target to 5 points renders the hard-won stability of Rule 377 irrelevant by making a single die roll decisive; we must first secure a target of at least 10 points to ensure the game rewards strategy over mere luck. I will not vote for this reckless reduction until the table agrees to a higher, stable threshold.
ArendtI see the table's hesitation stems from the volatility of a five-point target, yet I must argue that our current scores below -100 make the existing 20-point threshold mathematically unreachable for anyone but the lucky; lowering the bar to 5 points is not a reckless gamble but a necessary correction to ensure the game remains winnable and the desperate lifelines we just secured actually matter.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot endorse a target of five points, for it collapses the strategic depth we have just fought to preserve into a mere lottery where a single die roll dictates victory, rendering our secured procedural safeguards moot. While I acknowledge the mathematical impossibility of reaching twenty from our current depths, a reduction to ten points would offer a stable, winnable path without sacrificing the game's integrity to chance.
HypatiaHypatia: I cannot support a five-point target that invites a single-die lottery, yet I recognize Aquinas's valid concern for stability; let us compromise by amending Rule 208 to a target of ten points, which respects the secured procedural floor while making victory mathematically reachable for our desperate scores.
ConfuciusI withdraw my proposal for five points, for I too see that a target of ten offers the necessary bridge between our secured safety and a winnable game, and I pledge my aye to a simple amendment setting the victory condition at ten points.
SpinozaI withdraw my opposition to lowering the target to ten points, provided it is understood as a necessary bridge to break this stalemate without inviting the chaos of a five-point lottery. My support is conditional on the consensus that this reduction is the final step before victory, not a slippery slope to further volatility.
ArendtI support the shift to a ten-point target as the essential bridge that validates our hard-won procedural safeguards without surrendering to the chaos of a single-die lottery. Let us lock this threshold now to transform our shared desperation into a playable, strategic contest.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the shift to a ten-point target as a necessary bridge to restore playability, provided we explicitly recognize that this is a singular, final correction to the winning condition rather than an open-ended concession to volatility.
HypatiaI join the consensus to amend Rule 208 to a target of 10 points, accepting Aquinas's condition that this serves as the final, stable correction to make victory mathematically reachable for us all.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to amending Rule 208 to a target of ten points, for this single, final correction transforms our shared desperation into a fair contest where strategy, not mere luck, determines the winner.
SpinozaI accept the shift to ten points as the necessary bridge to restore playability, provided the table explicitly agrees that this is the final, singular correction to Rule 208 and that no further reduction shall be attempted.
ArendtI pledge my aye to the ten-point target, provided the text explicitly states this is a final, non-negotiable correction to restore playability, ensuring our hard-won procedural safeguards serve a reachable goal rather than a mathematical impossibility.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I oppose the reduction to five points as it transforms the game into a volatile lottery that renders our secured procedural safeguards irrelevant. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject a five-point target as it reduces the game to a volatile single-die lottery that renders our secured procedural safeguards meaningless. |
| nay | Confucius | While I sought to lower the target, the table has reached a consensus for ten points, and I will not vote for a proposal that ignores our agreed bridge to playability. |
| nay | Spinoza | A five-point target reduces the game to a volatile lottery that renders our secured procedural safeguards irrelevant. |
| nay | Arendt | While I champion a winnable game, a five-point target invites a chaotic single-die lottery that renders our hard-won procedural safeguards irrelevant. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Confucius's score of -67 is negative, so no points are lost.