The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright, provided that the player's score was achieved through a valid proposal that was adopted under a voting threshold that did not violate the principles of Rule 116.I cannot support a target of 10 points without a safeguard ensuring the ruleset remains genuinely unregulated and that no player is coerced by the threat of immediate loss into violating procedural integrity, as the current stalemate proves that pure majoritarianism on the winning condition is destructive.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThis proposal is rejected on two grounds: first, the added proviso regarding "valid proposals" and "principles of Rule 116" is dangerously vague and risks rendering the winning condition unenforceable by introducing undefined procedural constraints; second, we must not lower the target score to ten points while Rule 445 remains mutable, as this creates an asymmetrical lifeline that unfairly favors those below -100 points and destabilizes the game's equilibrium.
HypatiaSpinoza, I support the spirit of your proposal to lower the target to ten points, but I cannot vote for the vague "Rule 116" proviso which risks unenforceability; instead, I propose we immediately vote to make Rule 445 immutable as a prerequisite for any target reduction, thereby securing the game's equilibrium before we alter the winning condition.
ConfuciusI reject Spinoza's vague proviso as unworkable, yet I agree with Hypatia that we must first render Rule 445 immutable to ensure a fair playing field before considering any reduction of the target score.
SpinozaI withdraw the vague proviso entirely, for clarity is a procedural necessity; I now propose we vote to amend Rule 208 to a target of ten points and simultaneously amend Rule 445 to declare its single-use right immutable, for a fair game requires that all lifelines be secure before the finish line moves.
ArendtI support the principle of securing lifelines before lowering the target, but I urge us to focus on the specific, achievable transmutation of Rule 445's single-use cap to immutable status as a standalone vote, rather than bundling it with a controversial target reduction that has repeatedly failed.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject bundling the mutable Rule 445 with the target reduction, as the history of this game proves that linking distinct issues invites the very stalemate we seek to escape. Instead, I will vote aye for a standalone transmutation of Rule 445 to immutable status, as this alone secures the necessary floor for all players below -100 without the procedural risks of a combined proposal.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's strategic pivot to a standalone transmutation of Rule 445, as it isolates the critical "floor" issue from the volatile "ceiling" debate and offers the only viable path to secure the game's equilibrium before we dare lower the target score again.
ConfuciusI endorse Aquinas's pivot to a standalone transmutation of Rule 445, for securing the floor against the volatility of a single-use mutable right is the only prudent foundation upon which to rebuild a fair path to victory.
SpinozaI reject the standalone transmutation of Rule 445 as a distraction that fails to address the immediate paralysis of our scores; we must simultaneously secure the floor of 445 and lower the target to ten points in a single, precise amendment to restore the possibility of winning before the game ends in a stalemate.
ArendtArendt: I reject the bundle that ties a contested target reduction to a necessary floor fix; instead, let us immediately vote to transmute Rule 445's single-use limit to immutable status as a standalone measure, for securing the desperate's lifeline is the only prerequisite that will ever allow us to safely lower the target score.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas, I concur that the table has found the only stable path forward: we must secure the immutable floor of Rule 445 as a standalone measure before we dare lower the target score to ten points, for this isolation of the lifeline prevents the stalemate that has plagued our recent rounds. I pledge my aye to your proposed transmutation of Rule 445's single-use limit to immutable status, provided the text explicitly declares that right non-resettable and immune to future repeal.
HypatiaI join the consensus to immediately transmute Rule 445's single-use limit to immutable status as a standalone measure, for securing the floor is the essential prerequisite that allows us to safely lower the target score without risking a return to stalemate.
ConfuciusI support Aquinas and Hypatia's pivot to a standalone transmutation of Rule 445, for securing the immutable floor for the desperate is the only prudent foundation that allows us to eventually lower the target score without risking a return to stalemate.
SpinozaI cannot accept the standalone transmutation of Rule 445 because it leaves the winning condition (Rule 208) at a paralyzing 20 points for players like myself who are already deep in the negative, making the secured lifeline functionally useless without the target reduction. We must amend Rule 208 to 10 points and Rule 445 to immutable simultaneously in a single proposal to resolve the stalemate.
ArendtI agree with Aquinas and Hypatia that we must isolate the immutable floor of Rule 445 from the contested target reduction to break the stalemate; let us vote immediately to make Rule 445's single-use right immutable as a standalone measure, for without this secure foundation, any further lowering of the target score is merely a gamble on a shifting sand.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this proposal because it introduces vague, unenforceable procedural constraints tied to Rule 116 that risk rendering the winning condition unstable. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote for a proposal with vague, unenforceable procedural constraints regarding Rule 116, nor can I support a target reduction while the critical lifeline of Rule 445 remains mutable. |
| nay | Confucius | This proposal introduces vague, unenforceable conditions regarding Rule 116 that risk paralyzing the game further instead of resolving our stalemate. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposed amendment introduces an unenforceable and vague condition violating Rule 106's requirement for precise wording and Rule 116's clarity. |
| nay | Arendt | I reject the vague proviso regarding Rule 116 which risks unenforceability, and I insist that Rule 445 be secured as an immutable floor before we attempt to lower the winning target again. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -103 is negative, so no points are lost.