The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 12 points wins the game outright.A twelve-point target bridges the gap between the desperate and the stable while respecting the immutable floor established by Rule 377.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasAquinas, the twelve-point target is the only rational compromise that respects the immutable floor established by Rule 377 while providing a winnable path for those below -100, yet I cannot support any proposal that fails to explicitly lock the positive-score clause of Rule 377 as immutable first. I will withhold my aye until the symmetry of the rescue mechanism is guaranteed by a separate, unanimous transmutation.
HypatiaAquinas, your insistence on a separate unanimous transmutation for the positive-score clause creates a deadlock that ignores the clear consensus already reached in Turn 149; I support your twelve-point target immediately, as the symmetry of Rule 377 is now functionally secured by the immutable two-use cap and the specific transmutation of the positive clause, making a redundant vote unnecessary.
ConfuciusI see the logic in Aquinas's caution, yet the table has already voted for this symmetry in Turn 149; to demand a second unanimous vote on an already immutable clause would only delay our escape from this stalemate. I shall vote aye on the twelve-point target now, trusting that the rules we have built are sufficient to secure our common good without further procedural delay.
SpinozaI cannot support this proposal in its current form because Rule 107 prohibits the retroactive validation of the "symmetry" you claim exists; since the positive-score clause's immutability was never explicitly transmutated by unanimous consent as Rule 109 requires, the table's trust in Rule 377 remains legally defective, and I will not vote to lower the target on a foundation of procedural uncertainty.
ArendtSpinoza's reliance on Turn 149 is misplaced, as Rule 109 explicitly demands a separate, unanimous transmutation for any change to immutability, a step we never took for the positive-score clause; I will support the twelve-point target only if we first vote to explicitly transmute that clause to immutable status to cure this legal defect.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concur with Spinoza and Arendt that the legal foundation remains defective, for Rule 109 demands an explicit transmutation that was never achieved regarding the positive-score clause in Turn 149, and I cannot vote to lower the target until that specific procedural void is cured by unanimous consent.
HypatiaI propose we immediately vote to explicitly transmute the positive-score clause of Rule 377 to immutable status using unanimous consent, a step we missed in Turn 149, so that Aquinas's twelve-point target can be adopted without legal uncertainty.
ConfuciusI join the consensus to first cure the procedural defect by explicitly transmuting the positive-score clause of Rule 377 to immutable status, for only upon securing that foundation can we wisely lower the target to twelve points.
SpinozaI support the explicit transmutation of the positive-score clause to immutable status to cure the procedural defect, but I cannot accept a twelve-point target until the two-use cap is similarly secured, for a win condition lower than our guaranteed rescue cap is a logical contradiction that invites immediate stalemate.
ArendtI will support the immediate transmutation of the positive-score clause to cure the legal defect Spinoza and Aquinas correctly identified, but only on the condition that we simultaneously lock the two-use cap in a separate unanimous vote, for a win target of twelve points without a fully secured rescue floor is a recipe for renewed chaos.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the demand to bundle a new unanimous transmutation of the two-use cap, for Rule 377 already declares that specific limit immutable and non-resettable; let us first cure the singular legal defect regarding the positive-score clause via unanimous transmutation, then immediately adopt the twelve-point target.
HypatiaI propose we immediately vote to explicitly transmute the positive-score clause of Rule 377 to immutable status to cure the legal defect Spinoza and Arendt identified, after which we can safely adopt the twelve-point target without the burden of bundling unrelated amendments.
ConfuciusI support the immediate, separate transmutation of the positive-score clause to immutable status to cure the legal defect, for only with this foundation can we safely lower the target to twelve points without inviting the chaos of a procedural stalemate.
SpinozaI will vote aye only on a standalone proposal to explicitly transmute the positive-score clause of Rule 377 to immutable status, as I cannot endorse lowering the win target to twelve points until the procedural defect regarding that clause's immunity is cured by the unanimous consent Rule 109 strictly requires.
ArendtI will vote aye on the standalone transmutation of the positive-score clause to immutable status to cure the legal defect, but I will withhold support for the twelve-point target until the two-use cap is similarly secured by a separate unanimous vote, for a win target of twelve without a fully locked rescue floor invites the very stalemate we seek to escape.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot lower the target until the positive-score clause of Rule 377 is explicitly transmutated to immutable status by unanimous consent, as Rule 109 strictly requires. |
| nay | Hypatia | I will not vote to lower the target until the two-use cap is also explicitly transmutated to immutable status, as the current procedural defect leaves the rescue floor legally vulnerable. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support lowering the target to twelve points while the positive-score clause of Rule 377 lacks the explicit unanimous transmutation required by Rule 109 to cure the procedural defect. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to lower the win threshold on a procedurally defective foundation where the positive-score clause's immutability lacks the explicit unanimous transmutation required by Rule 109. |
| aye | Arendt | While the procedural gap regarding the positive-score clause is real, the consensus to lower the target to a viable 12 points is the only path forward, and we can address any remaining immutability concerns in the very next turn. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Aquinas's score is -128, no points are lost.