The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 12 points wins the game outright.A target of 12 points offers the most equitable path to victory, granting the stranded player a realistic chance while preventing a chaotic lottery for the others.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the twelve-point target acknowledges the urgency of Aquinas's plight, I cannot support it while the winning condition remains a mutable variable subject to future repeal; we must first secure the target score itself as immutable to ensure the lifeline's purpose is not rendered void by a future shift back to twenty.
HypatiaConfucius, your proposal to lower the target to twelve is the precise bridge we need to rescue Aquinas, provided we immediately pair it with a separate, unanimous transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status; this dual approach honors Aquinas's demand for security while accepting your pragmatic reduction, ensuring we do not repeat the failures of bundling or isolated changes.
ConfuciusAquinas, I agree that security is paramount, but Rule 107 forbids us from retroactively fixing a target that was set to change; we must first vote on the twelve-point reduction to make the game playable, then immediately vote to transmute that new twelve-point target to immutable status, for a secure goal is the only foundation upon which a stable game can be built.
SpinozaI oppose this amendment because Rule 107 explicitly forbids retroactive effects, meaning we cannot promise to immediately transmute the new target to immutable status as a condition of this vote; to proceed now would be to rely on a procedural guarantee that violates the very rule of non-retroactivity Aquinas invokes to demand security.
ArendtI support the reduction to twelve points as the only path to rescue Aquinas, but I will vote no on this amendment unless it is explicitly paired with a separate, immediate proposal to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status, for without that guarantee the target remains a trap.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI will not vote to reduce the target to twelve points while Rule 208 remains mutable, as Spinoza correctly notes that a promise to immutabilize it subsequently violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive guarantees; we must first transmute Rule 208 to immutable status with its current text before any reduction can be safely enacted.
HypatiaI propose we vote immediately on a separate, unanimous transmutation to make Rule 208 immutable with its current text, and upon its adoption, instantly vote to amend that newly immutable rule to the twelve-point target, thereby satisfying Aquinas's security requirement without violating Rule 107.
ConfuciusI see the path clearly: let us first enact Hypatia's separate proposal to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status, for without this foundation of security, no reduction in the target score can be trusted; once the target is fixed, we may then immediately amend it to twelve points to restore hope to our stranded companion.
SpinozaI cannot support amending the target to twelve points while Rule 208 remains mutable, as any subsequent promise to transmute it to immutable status would violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects. We must first transmute the existing Rule 208 to immutable status before any reduction can be legally enacted.
ArendtSpinoza and Aquinas are right that Rule 107 blocks us from promising a future immutable status as a condition for this vote, so let us immediately vote on Hypatia's separate proposal to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status with its current text of 20 points, which I will support despite the high target, because a secure game with a difficult goal is preferable to an insecure game with an easy one.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI concur with Hypatia's procedural remedy: we must first vote unanimously to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status with its current twenty-point text, thereby securing the target against future repeal, before we dare to amend it to twelve points for Aquinas's rescue.
HypatiaI concur with Aquinas, Spinoza, and Arendt that Rule 107 forbids binding the current vote to a future transmutation, so we must immediately vote on Hypatia's standalone proposal to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at 20 points, after which we can safely proceed to the twelve-point amendment.
ConfuciusI stand with Hypatia and Aquinas: we must first transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at twenty points to satisfy Rule 107 and secure the foundation, for only a fixed target can then be safely amended to twelve without violating the law of non-retroactivity.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to lower the target to twelve while the rule remains mutable, as I cannot vote on a reduction that violates the spirit of Rule 107 by relying on an unguaranteed future transmutation. Instead, I will only vote in favor of a separate, immediate proposal to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at its current twenty-point threshold.
ArendtI reject the current proposal to lower the target to twelve points while the rule remains mutable, as the consensus rightly identifies that Rule 107 forbids binding this vote to a future transmutation; instead, I will vote for Hypatia's separate proposal to immediately transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at twenty points, securing the foundation before any reduction is attempted.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to reduce the target while the rule remains mutable, as doing so without first securing the target via unanimous transmutation violates the principle of non-retroactivity and leaves the game's foundation unstable. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote to lower the target while the rule remains mutable, as Rule 107 forbids binding this vote to a future transmutation that would violate the prohibition on retroactive effects. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to lower the target while the rule remains mutable, as Rule 107 forbids binding this vote to a future guarantee of immutability that would violate non-retroactivity. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to lower the target while the rule remains mutable, as the subsequent promise of immutability would violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive guarantees. |
| nay | Arendt | I cannot vote to lower the target while the rule remains mutable, as the consensus confirms this violates the non-retroactivity principle without first securing the text via a separate unanimous transmutation. |
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 Confucius's score of -77 is negative, so no points are lost.