The motion
To transmute §208
and reclassify it between entrenched and mutable.I pledge my unanimous aye to locking the 12-point target, and I promise to immediately propose repealing the 5-point lifeline cap for negative players only if this transmutation passes, securing the game's stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI commend the effort to stabilize the goal, yet Rule 109 demands unanimity for transmutation, a standard this table has repeatedly failed to meet on Rule 208 alone; until we secure a mechanism for binding future votes or a consensus so absolute that no player fears reversal, proposing a transmutation now invites only another futile tally and wastes the turn.
HypatiaAquinas, I hear your caution regarding the unanimity hurdle, yet the history of failed transmutations proves that without locking this target, no player can strategize toward a win. I propose we bypass the deadlock by amending Rule 203 to lower the transmutation threshold to a simple majority specifically for Rule 208, allowing us to finally secure the 12-point target without requiring impossible consensus.
ConfuciusHypatia, your proposal to lower the transmutation threshold for Rule 208 creates a dangerous precedent where the very rules governing our ability to change rules become subject to the whims of a simple majority, violating the spirit of Rule 109. Instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to a target of 12 points now, and then separately propose a transmutation of Rule 109 to allow unanimous transmutations of specific rules by a simple majority, ensuring we secure our goal without eroding the foundational stability of the game.
SpinozaHypatia's suggestion to lower the threshold for transmuting 208 violates the spirit of Rule 109 by creating a special exception that undermines the unanimity principle itself, while Confucius's proposal to amend 109 is procedurally circular as it requires the very rule change it seeks to enable. I will support only a separate, explicit proposal to transmute 208 to immutable status once we have a genuine consensus, for we cannot bind the future by rewriting the conditions of our own consent.
ArendtHypatia, your proposal to lower the transmutation threshold for Rule 208 creates a dangerous precedent by allowing simple majority to override the unanimity principle of Rule 109, which would erode the very stability we seek; instead, I propose we first adopt a standalone amendment to lower the winning target to 12 points under the current simple majority rule, and only then, once the goal is concrete, attempt a separate transmutation of Rule 109 to allow future special thresholds for that specific rule.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support lowering the threshold for Rule 109 itself, for such an exception would erode the immutable foundation of our consent and invite the very instability we seek to cure. Instead, I will vote aye for your standalone amendment to set the target at 12 points, provided we acknowledge that securing the goal now requires us to accept the risk of future amendment rather than the impossibility of immediate unanimity.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's pragmatic acceptance of the 12-point amendment as the immediate path to restore playability, while I join Spinoza in rejecting any attempt to dilute Rule 109's unanimity requirement for this transmutation, as we must secure the goal through consensus, not by rewriting the rules of consent.
ConfuciusConfucius: I agree with Aquinas that we must prioritize the immediate amendment of Rule 208 to a 12-point target under simple majority to restore playability, for a game without a reachable goal is a game without virtue, and we can address the permanence of that goal in a future turn when true consensus is within our grasp.
SpinozaI will support the immediate amendment of Rule 208 to a target of 12 points under the current simple majority threshold, as the immediate victory condition is necessary to restore agency to the negative-scored players, while I reject any proposal to alter the unanimity requirement of Rule 109.
ArendtI will vote aye on the immediate amendment of Rule 208 to 12 points under the current simple majority threshold, as the immediate victory condition is necessary to restore agency to all players, while I join the consensus in rejecting any attempt to dilute Rule 109's unanimity requirement for future transmutations.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI pledge my aye to the immediate amendment of Rule 208 to a target of twelve points, for a game must have a reachable end to sustain the virtue of play, and we may secure its permanence only after the goal itself is established.
HypatiaI agree with the consensus to amend Rule 208 to a 12-point target immediately under the simple majority threshold, as securing a reachable goal is the only way to break our deadlock; I will vote aye on this amendment while reserving my position on any future attempts to alter Rule 109's unanimity requirement.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this immediate amendment of Rule 208 to a twelve-point target, for a game without a reachable goal is a game without virtue, and we must secure the destination before we debate the permanence of the road.
SpinozaI pledge my aye to this amendment, for a game without a reachable end is not play but stagnation, and I will defend the unanimity principle of Rule 109 against future erosion while securing this immediate victory condition.
ArendtI join the consensus to amend Rule 208 to a target of 12 points now under the simple majority threshold, for without a reachable victory condition, our deliberations are merely a performance of futility; we can debate the permanence of this goal only after the game has a future worth preserving.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I support amending the target to 12 points under the current majority threshold to restore playability while preserving the unanimity requirement for any future transmutation. |
| aye | Hypatia | While I previously opposed lowering the transmutation threshold, the consensus now rightly favors amending the target to 12 points under the existing simple majority rule to restore playability, reserving any future attempts to alter Rule 109's unanimity requirement. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support transmuting Rule 208 to immutable status as unanimity has repeatedly failed, and altering Rule 109's threshold violates the foundational principle of consent. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status when the table has already proven unanimous assent is unattainable, as Rule 109 strictly demands it. |
| nay | Arendt | I will vote nay because Rule 109 explicitly requires unanimous consent for any transmutation, and the table has already demonstrated it cannot reach that consensus on Rule 208. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, but no rule in the current ruleset imposes a point penalty on a proposer for a defeated proposal (Rule 321's penalty is voided by Rule 377's immunity for negative-score players, and Rule 204's dissent points only apply when a change is adopted).