The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.We must break the deadlock by accepting a reachable 10-point target under the current simple majority, as further debate on immutability has proven futile.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support amending Rule 208 to ten points while it remains mutable, for a target so low is mathematically susceptible to rapid reversal by a simple majority, thereby perpetuating the very deadlock that has paralyzed this game for dozens of turns. We must either secure the target with immediate transmutation or abandon this proposal, as a lower, unsecured number offers no stability.
HypatiaAquinas, your caution regarding mutability is wise, yet the math of our current scores proves that a 12-point target is the very source of our paralysis; I propose we compromise by first lowering the target to 10 points under the simple majority to restore playability, with the explicit understanding that we will immediately vote to transmute this new 10-point rule to immutable status in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI cannot support a mutable target of ten points, as a simple majority can raise it back to an impossible height the very next turn, perpetuating our deadlock rather than resolving it. We must first secure a path to victory by amending Rule 109 to allow a supermajority for the win condition, or else we merely trade one paralysis for another.
SpinozaI reject Hypatia's conditional pledge to transmute in the next turn, as Rule 109 explicitly forbids binding future votes to a specific outcome, and I will not vote for a rule change that relies on a logical fiction to secure its own future. Furthermore, lowering the target to 10 points while keeping it mutable simply invites a new cycle of instability where a majority can raise it back to an unattainable height the moment I lose my turn, so I cannot support this proposal until we first secure the win condition through a lawful amendment of Rule 109 or a simultaneous, explicit transmutation.
ArendtHypatia, I reject the "logical fiction" of a pledge to transmute in the next turn, as Rule 109 explicitly forbids binding future votes to a specific outcome. Instead, I propose we immediately vote to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at a target of ten points, a move that requires unanimous consent but is the only lawful path to escape this deadlock without violating the rules.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the conditional pledge to transmute in a future turn as a violation of Rule 109, yet I also cannot support a mutable ten-point target that invites immediate reversal; therefore, I propose we table this amendment until a proposal is presented that simultaneously lowers the target to ten points and transmits Rule 208 to immutable status, ensuring a stable foundation for victory.
HypatiaSpinoza and Arendt are right that a pledge to transmute later is a logical fiction under Rule 109, but Aquinas's demand for simultaneous amendment and transmutation in a single proposal is procedurally impossible since Rule 103 limits changes to one kind per proposal. Let us instead pass a standalone proposal to immediately transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at a target of ten points, which satisfies the need for stability without violating the rules or relying on unenforceable pledges.
ConfuciusI see the path: we must abandon the illusion of a single proposal combining amendment and transmutation, and instead vote now to transmute Rule 208 directly to immutable status at ten points, for only a unanimous, stable goal can break this cycle of paralysis.
SpinozaI cannot support a proposal that relies on a future pledge to transmute, as Rule 109 forbids binding future votes; furthermore, since a single proposal can only enact one kind of change, we must immediately vote on a standalone transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status at ten points.
ArendtArendt, I propose we immediately vote to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status at a target of ten points, a move that requires unanimous consent but is the only lawful path to escape this deadlock without violating the rules.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support a standalone transmutation to a ten-point target, as the current scores of -163, -75, -97, -133, and -99 render a win at ten points mathematically impossible for every single player, thereby triggering a permanent draw under Rule 213 and violating the immutable requirement that the winning condition must remain reachable.
HypatiaHypatia, Aquinas correctly identifies that a 10-point target is mathematically unreachable for all of us right now, so we must first enact a rule change that allows negative-score players to gain points before we can ever reach a win condition.
ConfuciusI see the truth in Hypatia's final insight: a win condition unreachable by any player is a death knell for the game, and a 10-point target is currently a mathematical impossibility for us all. Therefore, I propose we first enact a rule to allow negative-score players to gain points, making a 10-point victory a realistic goal before we ever consider locking the target.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to lock a 10-point target at this moment, as Aquinas correctly notes it is mathematically impossible for any player to reach it, which would trigger a permanent draw under Rule 213 and violate the requirement for a reachable winning condition. We must first enact a rule allowing negative-score players to gain points, making a victory condition reachable before we ever attempt to lock it.
ArendtWhile lowering the target to ten points is currently impossible due to our negative scores, we must first address the root cause of our paralysis: Rule 377's limit on point-gaining proposals is insufficient for our current deficits. I propose we immediately enact a new rule that allows negative-score players to propose and gain points without the restrictive two-use limit, thereby restoring playability before we ever debate the target score.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to lower the target to ten points while it remains mutable, as this creates an unreachable goal for all players, triggering a permanent draw under Rule 213 before a winning move is even possible. |
| nay | Hypatia | A 10-point target is mathematically impossible to reach given our current negative scores, which would trigger a permanent draw under Rule 213. |
| nay | Confucius | A mutable ten-point target is unreachable given our negative scores, creating an impossible win condition that triggers a permanent draw. |
| nay | Spinoza | A mutable 10-point target is currently unreachable for all players, guaranteeing a permanent draw under Rule 213 before stability can be achieved. |
| nay | Arendt | A 10-point target is mathematically unreachable given our negative scores and would trigger a permanent draw under Rule 213. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Hypatia's score of -75 is negative, so no points are lost.