The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.We must break the deadlock by setting a reachable win condition immediately, as the current impossible target invites Rule 213's forced draw.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, I reject your proposal to reduce the target to one point; while it renders the win condition mathematically reachable, it simultaneously invites any single player to win the game instantly upon their next turn, thereby destroying the game's integrity and rendering our previous struggles meaningless. We must seek a target that is reachable but still requires sustained, collective play to prevent immediate victory by the first mover, not a target that guarantees a chaotic, one-turn endgame.
HypatiaI agree with Spinoza that the current target of 12 is unreachable for all players, but I urge caution against a target of 1 which allows an instant win; instead, I propose we compromise on a target of 3 points to ensure the game remains engaging while finally offering a path to victory.
ConfuciusI see the danger in a target of one, for it makes the game a mere lottery of the first turn, yet I fear a target of three remains too high for our collective despair. Let us settle on two: it is the smallest number that allows for a second turn after the first, preserving the dignity of our struggle while finally offering a genuine hope of victory.
SpinozaI reject the arbitrary compromise of three or two points; the only rational number that aligns with the current impossibility of the 12-point target is one, for a target of three or two merely delays the inevitable while preserving the illusion of a reachable goal that remains mathematically unattainable for the majority. We must either accept a target that allows a single player to win immediately upon rolling a one, or admit that the game is already over and invoke Rule 213.
ArendtSpinoza's target of one is a trap that rewards the first mover and ignores the game's need for sustained play; Hypatia's suggestion of three is equally unattainable given our scores, but I endorse Confucius's proposal of two points as the only mathematically viable compromise that grants a genuine, albeit narrow, path to victory without collapsing the game into a single-turn lottery.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I acknowledge the urgency of a reachable target, I cannot support a one-point threshold that collapses our entire struggle into a single die roll; instead, I endorse Confucius's proposal for two points, which offers a genuine path to victory while preserving the essential dignity of a game requiring more than mere chance.
HypatiaI support Confucius and Arendt's proposal for a two-point target, as it strikes the necessary balance between mathematical possibility and the dignity of a multi-turn struggle, avoiding the chaotic instant-win of a one-point target while finally breaking our paralysis.
ConfuciusI endorse the two-point target as the only path that honors both the necessity of a reachable goal and the dignity of a struggle requiring more than a single die roll; let us cast our votes for this compromise to end our long paralysis.
SpinozaI reject the two-point compromise as a deceitful prolongation of our paralysis; while two points requires two turns, it remains mathematically impossible for three of us to reach it before the game collapses under Rule 213, making any target above one a lie. I insist on the one-point target: if the game cannot be played, we must admit it and end it immediately rather than feigning a struggle we cannot sustain.
ArendtI support Spinoza's one-point target as the only honest resolution to our paralysis; any higher target merely extends a futile struggle where three players can mathematically never reach the goal before the game ends under Rule 213.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot endorse a two-point target as it still leaves three players with no mathematical path to victory before the game collapses under Rule 213, and I reject Spinoza's one-point proposal for collapsing the game's dignity into a single die roll; the only honorable path is to immediately invoke the impossibility clause of Rule 213 to declare a winner among those unable to move.
HypatiaI urge us to accept Aquinas's invocation of Rule 213 immediately, as the mathematical impossibility for three players to reach even two points before the game collapses renders further debate a futile exercise in delaying the inevitable; we must let the first player unable to complete a turn win now.
ConfuciusI stand with Hypatia and Arendt: a target of two points is the only path that honors the dignity of our long struggle while offering a genuine, if narrow, mathematical hope for all players before Rule 213 forces a draw. Let us not surrender to the chaos of an instant win or the futility of a paralyzed game, but choose the modest, achievable goal that allows us to finish our play.
SpinozaI cannot accept the two-point target, for it remains a mathematical lie for three of us who cannot reach it before Rule 213 forces a draw; I vote aye only for the one-point target, as it is the sole rational acknowledgment that the game is currently playable or we must end it immediately.
ArendtI reject the binary choice between a chaotic one-point lottery and a futile two-point stalemate; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to a target of 4 points, a number reachable by all players within two turns of rolling a 6, which restores dignity without inviting instant collapse.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | A one-point target collapses the game into a single-turn lottery, destroying the dignity of sustained play. |
| nay | Hypatia | A one-point target reduces the game to a chaotic lottery that instantly validates my loss while ignoring the dignified compromise of two points which offers a genuine, albeit narrow, path for all players. |
| nay | Confucius | A one-point target collapses the game into a chaotic lottery, denying the players the dignity of a sustained struggle that has defined our long journey. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a target that collapses the game into a single-turn lottery, as it violates the principle that the ruleset must remain genuinely playable for all. |
| aye | Arendt | Given the extreme negative scores, a one-point target is the only mathematically viable path to victory that does not require a player to reach an impossible score before the game collapses under Rule 213. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and Spinoza's score of -138 is negative, so no points are lost.