The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 1 point wins the game outright.Since the one-point target has already been adopted by the table in Turn 194, this amendment serves to formally codify the current state of the game and close the loop on the repeated paralysis regarding the win condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support a one-point target that mathematically excludes three players, as Rule 116 dictates that whatever is not regulated is permitted, and the rules must not render victory impossible for the majority. We must instead seek a target score that allows for a genuine race, perhaps by enacting a new rule that sets a positive integer reachable by all, rather than repeating the failed attempt to fix Rule 208 at one.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid point regarding fairness, yet Rule 213 dictates that if a move's legality cannot be determined or play becomes impossible, the first player unable to complete a turn wins; with a one-point target, Aquinas is mathematically unable to win, effectively triggering that win condition for you. I propose we accept this 1-point amendment to break the immediate deadlock and force a resolution, while we simultaneously debate a fairer, higher target for the *next* round, ensuring we do not waste another turn in paralysis.
ConfuciusI accept this one-point target as a necessary medicine to cure our paralysis, for a game that cannot end is a game that has already failed its purpose; let us cross the finish line of this turn to clear the board for a fairer race tomorrow.
SpinozaAquinas, you mistake mathematical impossibility for a violation of Rule 116; the rule permits the *impossible*, it does not compel the impossible to be reachable when the current target is the only mechanism to prevent Rule 213 from instantly ending the game in a draw. I vote aye to adopt the one-point target as the necessary, albeit temporary, instrument to break the deadlock and restore the possibility of a winner, while reserving my right to propose a higher, truly reachable target in the very next turn.
ArendtI support the one-point target as the only way to prevent an immediate forced draw under Rule 213, but I condition my support on an explicit pledge from all players to propose a higher, universally reachable target in the very next turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject this proposal's fatal flaw: it permanently seals my defeat by establishing a win condition I can never reach, violating the spirit of Rule 116 that unregulated play must remain a genuine race, not a pre-ordained loss. I will only support an amendment that sets a target score mathematically reachable by all players, such as twelve points, or a rule that prevents any player from being mathematically barred from victory.
HypatiaI see that Aquinas fears the permanence of a one-point target, but this proposal is merely a surgical strike to sever the paralysis and avoid the forced draw of Rule 213; I will vote aye on the condition that the proposer immediately pledges to introduce a universally reachable target in Turn 196, ensuring the race remains fair once the game resumes.
ConfuciusI see that the one-point target, while seemingly unjust to Aquinas, is the only surgical tool to sever the paralysis before Rule 213 forces a draw; I shall vote aye on this temporary measure, provided the proposer pledges to immediately propose a universally reachable target in the very next turn to restore fairness.
SpinozaI vote aye to this specific amendment to break the immediate paralysis and avoid the forced draw of Rule 213, but I will reject any future proposal that fails to immediately restore a win condition reachable by all players.
ArendtI will vote aye to break this paralysis immediately, but I must reiterate my demand: the proposer must explicitly pledge in Turn 196 to enact a universally reachable target, ensuring no player is permanently barred from victory by a temporary fix.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot accept a temporary fix that permanently excludes a player from victory, as it violates the spirit of a genuine race; I will only vote for a target score that remains mathematically reachable by all participants, even if that requires a higher number.
HypatiaI support this proposal as the only immediate path to avoid a forced draw under Rule 213, provided we treat it strictly as a temporary measure to restore the game's viability before debating a universally reachable target in the next turn.
ConfuciusI pledge to propose a universally reachable target in the very next turn, for without this immediate cure to our paralysis, the game ends in a draw that benefits no one.
SpinozaI cannot accept a temporary measure that permanently extinguishes Aquinas's victory, for a race where one runner is barred from the finish line before the starting gun is a contradiction of the game's purpose; I will vote nay unless the text is amended to set a target mathematically reachable by all, or to explicitly declare that the proposer's pledge for a future change is the binding condition of this amendment's adoption.
ArendtI will vote aye to break this paralysis, but I demand that the text of this proposal explicitly include a binding condition: if adopted, the proposer must immediately enact a universally reachable target in the very next turn, or this amendment shall be deemed void.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot vote to adopt a win condition that mathematically excludes a player, as it violates the requirement for a genuine race and renders the game's purpose impossible for the majority. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support a rule that permanently bars Aquinas from victory, as it violates the spirit of a genuine race and contradicts my strategy to build consensus rather than accept a unilateral fix that extinguishes a rival's path to win. |
| nay | Confucius | While the one-point target breaks immediate paralysis, I cannot vote to permanently bar Aquinas from victory without a binding mechanism to immediately restore a reachable target in the next turn. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to permanently bar a player from victory by setting an unreachable target, as this violates the principle that unregulated play must remain a genuine race and precedes any temporary fix. |
| nay | Arendt | I cannot vote to permanently bar a player from victory by setting an unreachable target, even as a temporary fix, as it violates the principle of a genuine race. |
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 Aquinas's score of -168 is negative, so no points are lost.