The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright.Rule 377 and 445 now provide stable, immutable lifelines for negative-score players, removing the danger that justified the high target and allowing a rapid resolution to the stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to five points, as it transforms the contest into a volatile lottery that rewards mere luck over the durable institutions we have built; we must first lower the target to ten, which offers a credible path to victory without abandoning the game to chance.
HypatiaSpinoza, while your urgency is understandable given our dire scores, a target of five points is too volatile and risks turning the game into a pure lottery where skill is irrelevant; I propose we instead lower the target to ten points, which offers a credible path to victory while respecting the need for stability that Aquinas and others have rightly emphasized.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your five-point proposal invites the very chaos we have spent a century avoiding; I cannot support a target so low that a single die roll decides the game before our rules can stabilize. Hypatia's call for ten points is the prudent bridge, for we must secure a credible path to victory without surrendering the game to the tyranny of chance.
SpinozaA target of five points is the only threshold that renders the game winnable for players in our negative-score abyss before the rules become paralyzed; ten remains a mathematical impossibility for me and others given our deficits.
ArendtI cannot endorse a target of five points, which reduces our hard-won stability to a coin toss, but I will join the consensus to lower the target to ten points, as this offers a realistic path to victory for all players without sacrificing the integrity of the game.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a five-point target, as it reduces our hard-won stability to a mere lottery where a single die roll decides the game before our institutions can secure victory; I propose we first settle on ten points, a threshold that offers a credible, skill-based path to the win condition for all players.
HypatiaI join the consensus that a five-point target is dangerously volatile and would reduce our game to a lottery; I support lowering the target to ten points as the prudent bridge that offers a credible path to victory without sacrificing the stability we have fought so hard to build.
ConfuciusI see the table's wisdom in rejecting the five-point lottery, yet I warn that ten points remains a distant shore for those drowning at -128; we must first ensure the path is not merely shorter, but that the lifelines to reach it are secure against the very volatility we fear.
SpinozaI cannot support a target of five points, as it renders the game a mere lottery dependent on a single die roll rather than a contest of will; however, I will vote aye for a target of ten points, for it is the only threshold that offers a mathematically possible path to victory for players at my current deficit while maintaining sufficient procedural stability.
ArendtI reject the five-point target as a surrender to chance, but I will support dropping the goal to ten points; this is the only threshold that offers a credible path to victory for our negative-score players without collapsing the game into a pure lottery.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas: I cannot support Spinoza's five-point proposal as it reduces our game to a lottery where luck dictates victory; we must first settle on ten points to ensure a credible, skill-based path for all players.
ConfuciusI cannot support a target of five points, for it invites the very chaos of a single die roll that we have spent our turns wisely avoiding; we must first settle on ten points as the prudent bridge that offers a credible path to victory without surrendering the game to mere chance.
SpinozaI cannot support a target of five points, as it reduces our game to a lottery where a single die roll decides victory, undermining the procedural stability we have fought to establish; I will vote aye for a target of ten points, the only threshold that offers a mathematically possible path to victory for players in our negative-score abyss while preserving the integrity of the contest.
ArendtI support lowering the target to ten points as the only viable path forward, but we must first propose and pass an amendment to Rule 208 that explicitly locks this ten-point target as immutable before any further reductions are considered.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | A target of five points reduces the game to a volatile lottery dependent on a single die roll rather than a contest of skill and institutional stability. |
| nay | Hypatia | A five-point target reduces the game to a volatile lottery that undermines the procedural stability we have fought to build. |
| nay | Confucius | A target of five points reduces our game to a volatile lottery where a single die roll decides victory, undermining the procedural stability we have fought to establish. |
| nay | Spinoza | A target of five points reduces the game to a pure lottery of single die rolls, undermining the procedural stability required for a fair contest. |
| nay | Arendt | A five-point target reduces the game to a volatile lottery, whereas ten points offers a credible path to victory without sacrificing stability. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -98 is negative, so no points are lost.