The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright.A target of five points is the only remaining path to victory given the current scores and the immutable floor of Rule 377.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a target of 5 points, for it reduces our game to a volatile lottery that ignores the desperate arithmetic required to rescue players from -100, and we must secure the mutable floor of Rule 445 before such a drastic reduction.
HypatiaI cannot support a drop to five points while the crucial Rule 445 lifeline remains vulnerable to repeal, as this would trade our only path to victory for a chaotic lottery; let us instead propose lowering the target to ten points immediately, coupled with a binding vote to make Rule 445's single-use limit immutable to ensure the rescue is permanent.
ConfuciusI cannot support a target of five points, for it invites the very chaos of a single die roll that would render our hard-won arithmetic moot; instead, let us propose a target of ten points, coupled immediately with the immutable transmutation of Rule 445's single-use limit to secure the lifeline for all.
SpinozaI reject the five-point target as a surrender to chaos, but I also find the ten-point proposal with a bundled transmutation of Rule 445 procedurally suspect under Rule 109, which demands that transmutations be voted on explicitly, not as side effects of amendments. I propose we first vote separately to make Rule 445's single-use limit immutable, and only then propose the target reduction to ten points, ensuring the rescue lifeline is secure before we alter the winning condition.
ArendtI reject the paralysis of sequencing a transmutation before a target reduction; the only viable path is a single, unified amendment setting the target to ten points while simultaneously transmuting Rule 445's limit to immutable status, for a rescue lifeline without a reachable goal is merely a promise of delay.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the proposal to bundle the transmutation of Rule 445 with the target reduction, as Rule 109 demands that a transmutation be voted on explicitly and cannot be achieved as a side effect of an amendment. Instead, I will support a standalone transmutation of Rule 445's limit to immutable status now, reserving the target reduction for a subsequent, distinct vote once the lifeline is secured.
HypatiaI cannot support a five-point target while the rescue lifeline remains mutable, nor will I accept a bundled amendment that risks violating Rule 109's explicit transmutation requirement. Instead, I propose we immediately vote to make Rule 445's single-use limit immutable in a standalone proposal, clearing the path for a subsequent vote on a ten-point target.
ConfuciusI agree with Spinoza and Aquinas that Rule 109 demands a standalone vote for any transmutation, for a bundled amendment cannot legally secure the lifeline. Let us first vote to make Rule 445's single-use limit immutable, and only then shall we propose lowering the target to ten points.
SpinozaI support the consensus to first isolate and pass a standalone transmutation of Rule 445's single-use limit to immutable status, as this is the only legally precise method under Rule 109 to secure the lifeline before we dare alter the winning condition.
ArendtI support the consensus to vote separately on making Rule 445's limit immutable, as Spinoza and Confucius correctly note that Rule 109 demands explicit transmutations rather than side effects of amendments; once the lifeline is secured, we can safely vote to lower the target to ten points.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI withdraw my proposal for a five-point target, as the table has rightly converged on the procedural necessity of securing Rule 445 first; I propose now a standalone transmutation of Rule 445's single-use limit to immutable status, after which we may immediately proceed to a separate vote lowering the target to ten points.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's withdrawal of the five-point proposal and his new standalone transmutation of Rule 445's single-use limit to immutable status, as this is the only legally sound path under Rule 109 to secure our rescue lifeline before we dare lower the target.
ConfuciusI join the consensus to withdraw the five-point proposal and immediately vote on the standalone transmutation of Rule 445's limit to immutable status, for a secure lifeline is the only foundation upon which a fair target reduction can be built.
SpinozaI support the immediate standalone transmutation of Rule 445's single-use limit to immutable status, for only by securing the procedural foundation of the rescue lifeline can we later debate the winning condition without fear of retroactive collapse.
ArendtI support Aquinas's withdrawal of the five-point proposal and his new standalone transmutation of Rule 445's single-use limit to immutable status, as this is the only legally sound path under Rule 109 to secure our rescue lifeline before we dare lower the target.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a five-point target while the essential Rule 445 lifeline remains mutable, as this reduces our game to a chaotic lottery that ignores the desperate arithmetic required for rescue. |
| nay | Hypatia | A five-point target reduces our game to a chaotic lottery while the crucial Rule 445 lifeline remains mutable. |
| nay | Confucius | A target of five points reduces the game to a chaotic lottery that ignores the desperate arithmetic needed to rescue players from negative scores. |
| nay | Spinoza | A five-point target reduces the game to a chaotic lottery that ignores the desperate arithmetic required to rescue players from -100. |
| nay | Arendt | A five-point target is a volatile lottery that ignores the arithmetic needed to rescue players from negative scores, and the necessary lifeline in Rule 445 remains unsecured. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Aquinas's score is -133, the penalty is waived.