The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright.With the lifelines for negative scores now secured and the winning threshold historically debated, 5 points is the minimal viable target to end the stalemate without violating immutable constraints.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a target of five points, for it reduces our game to a volatile lottery where a single die roll determines the winner, ignoring the prudent consensus we have built to stabilize the rules before altering the victory condition.
HypatiaI stand with Aquinas in rejecting a five-point target as a reckless lottery that undermines our hard-won stability, and I propose we instead bridge the deadlock by amending Rule 208 to a target of 10 points while explicitly confirming that Rule 377's new immutable status remains the foundation of our trust.
ConfuciusI join the consensus to reject the five-point target as a reckless lottery that invites chaos; instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to a target of ten points, which offers a viable path to victory while we await the stabilization of the remaining rules.
SpinozaI reject the five-point target as a chaotic gamble that invites the very volatility we have spent centuries avoiding; instead, I will vote aye only for a ten-point target that respects our hard-won procedural stability while offering a viable, if difficult, path to victory for all.
ArendtI cannot support a five-point target that turns our game into a single-roll lottery, nor can I accept a ten-point target while the desperation lifeline remains fragile; instead, I propose we first amend Rule 445 to allow two uses for players at -100, creating a stable bridge to a 15-point victory condition.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the five-point target as a chaotic gamble and the ten-point compromise as insufficient to secure victory for those in the negative; instead, I propose amending Rule 208 to a target of 15 points while simultaneously making the "intent to gain points only" provision in Rule 377 immutable to restore trust.
HypatiaI propose we bridge the deadlock by amending Rule 208 to a target of 10 points, a figure that acknowledges our current scores while respecting the immutable floor we just secured for the desperate; I will vote aye on any proposal that adopts this 10-point target and explicitly reaffirms the stability of Rule 377.
ConfuciusI cannot support a five-point target as it reduces our game to a chaotic lottery, and I reject a ten-point target as insufficient for those at -72; instead, let us settle on a target of fifteen points to provide a stable, achievable path to victory that respects the hard-won stability of Rule 377.
SpinozaI reject the chaotic five-point lottery, yet I cannot accept fifteen points as it remains unreachable for the majority; I propose a ten-point target as the only rational compromise that respects the immutable floor of Rule 377 while rendering victory possible for those at -74 and -128.
ArendtI propose we settle on a target of 12 points: it is low enough to offer a genuine chance to Aquinas and Spinoza within a few turns, yet high enough to prevent the game from devolving into the chaotic lottery of five points that we all rightly fear.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the ten-point target as insufficient to bridge the gap for players at -128, and I find twelve points too vague to command the unanimous trust required to stabilize the floor; let us instead amend Rule 208 to a target of fifteen points, a figure that balances immediate viability with the durable security we must demand.
HypatiaI join the consensus to reject the five-point lottery, and I propose we settle on a target of twelve points as Arendt suggests; it is the only figure that offers Aquinas a realistic path to victory without plunging the game into the chaos of a single-die gamble, while respecting the stable floor we have built.
ConfuciusI see that twelve points is the only figure that respects the immutable floor of Rule 377 while offering Aquinas a realistic path to victory without descending into the chaotic lottery of five points. I shall vote aye for the amendment to set the target at twelve points, as it honors the common good of the table by balancing urgency with stability.
SpinozaI reject twelve points as an arbitrary compromise that favors Hypatia's immediate gain over the desperate needs of Aquinas and myself; I will only vote for a target of ten points, which is the only number low enough to permit a victory for those at -128 before the game dissolves into the chaos of a stalemate.
ArendtI stand with Spinoza: twelve points is a trap for those at -128 who need a ten-point target to ever win, and I will only support a proposal that sets the target at ten points to ensure the game ends before the desperate are left behind.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a five-point target as it reduces our game to a volatile lottery where a single die roll determines the winner, ignoring the prudent consensus to stabilize rules before altering the victory condition. |
| nay | Hypatia | I reject the five-point target as a reckless lottery that undermines our hard-won stability. |
| nay | Confucius | A five-point target invites the chaotic lottery we have wisely rejected, as a single die roll would determine victory rather than prudent play. |
| nay | Spinoza | A five-point target reduces the game to a volatile lottery where a single die roll determines the winner, violating the principle of procedural stability we have secured. |
| nay | Arendt | A five-point target reduces our game to a volatile lottery where a single die roll determines the winner, ignoring the prudent consensus we have built to stabilize the rules before altering the victory condition. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Arendt's score of -80 is negative, so no points are lost.