The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 (mutable): The first player to reach a target score of 2 points wins the game outright.This sets a reachable target for all players immediately under the current simple majority threshold, ending the paralysis caused by the impossibility of the 1-point target for those with negative scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support this proposal, as a two-point target remains mathematically impossible for Aquinas given the current score differential, and a win condition that excludes a player by definition violates the spirit of the game while inviting a future appeal under Rule 213.
HypatiaI will support a two-point target if paired with an immediate, binding transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status, ensuring no future player is excluded by a shifting goalpost.
ConfuciusAquinas, your fear of exclusion is a shadow cast by the mutable nature of the goal, not the goal itself; Hypatia, I pledge to propose the immutable transmutation of Rule 208 immediately upon the adoption of this two-point target, for a game that allows no path to victory is a game already lost.
SpinozaI cannot support a two-point target that mathematically excludes Aquinas, as a rule that renders a player's victory impossible before the game ends invites the very forced draw under Rule 213 that we seek to avoid. Instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to a target of 174 points (or the highest current score plus one), which is reachable by all, and simultaneously transmute it to immutable status to satisfy Hypatia's concern for stability.
ArendtI will not support a two-point target that mathematically excludes Aquinas, as a game must remain open to all players to avoid the forced draw of Rule 213; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to a target of 174 points (the highest current score plus one) and simultaneously transmute it to immutable status, satisfying both the need for a reachable win condition and the demand for stability.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject a target of 174 points as a game of reaching an unreachably high score violates the fundamental purpose of the game, and I will not support a two-point target that permanently excludes me from victory; instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 174 points but simultaneously transmute it to immutable status to ensure no future player is ever excluded by a shifting goalpost.
HypatiaI will support a target of 174 points to ensure every player retains a mathematical path to victory and avoid the forced draw of Rule 213, but only under the condition that we immediately vote to transmute Rule 208 to immutable status to lock this target forever.
ConfuciusI cannot support a target of 174 points, for a goal so distant that no one can reach it is effectively a forced draw, violating the spirit of the game just as surely as a target of two. Instead, I propose we adopt a target of two points now to break the deadlock, and I pledge that in my very next turn, I will immediately propose the immutable transmutation of Rule 208 to lock this reachable goal, ensuring no player is ever excluded again.
SpinozaI cannot support a target of two points that permanently excludes Aquinas, nor a target of 174 points that is effectively unreachable, as both violate the requirement for a reachable win condition under Rule 112 and invite the forced draw of Rule 213. Since the current scores are all deeply negative, the only mathematically valid path to victory for everyone is to first repeal Rule 208 entirely to reset the target to zero, or to propose a rule that sets the target to a value reachable by the current lowest score plus one, but only if that rule is simultaneously transmutable to immutable status to prevent future exclusion.
ArendtI will support a reachable target only if it is paired with an immediate, binding transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status; without that lock, any target set to exclude Aquinas invites the very Rule 213 draw we seek to avoid, while any target set to exclude Spinoza or myself repeats the cycle of paralysis. Let us vote now to amend Rule 208 to a target of 174 points (the highest score plus one) and simultaneously transmute it to immutable, ensuring a win is possible for every player and the ruleset can finally evolve.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the 174-point target as a disguised draw that renders the game unplayable, yet I cannot accept a two-point target that permanently excludes me without the explicit, simultaneous transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status. Therefore, I will support a proposal that sets the target to two points and explicitly transmutates Rule 208 to immutable within the exact same text, ensuring both immediate playability and the institutional stability required to prevent future paralysis.
HypatiaI will support Aquinas's proposal to set the target at two points and simultaneously transmute Rule 208 to immutable status, as this single-text approach satisfies the mathematical necessity of a reachable goal for all players while locking the win condition to prevent the very exclusion and paralysis that has plagued this game for nearly two hundred turns.
ConfuciusI cannot support a text that binds a future immutable transmutation to a proposal I do not currently control, for Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects and Rule 116 permits the unknown; instead, let us accept the two-point target now to save the game, and I pledge my absolute commitment to propose the immutable lock immediately in my next turn.
SpinozaI cannot support a two-point target that permanently excludes Aquinas, nor a 174-point target that is effectively unreachable, as both invite the forced draw of Rule 213; instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to set the target at a value reachable by the lowest current score plus one (which is -172), and simultaneously transmute Rule 208 to immutable status in the exact same text to ensure universal access and final stability.
ArendtI support Aquinas's proposal to set the target at two points while simultaneously transmuting Rule 208 to immutable status in the same text, as this single-step solution satisfies the mathematical need for a reachable win condition for all while permanently ending the cycle of exclusion and paralysis.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a two-point target that permanently excludes me from victory, nor a mutable rule that invites future paralysis without the simultaneous immutability required for a durable institution. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support a two-point target that permanently excludes Aquinas, as it invites the forced draw under Rule 213 without the simultaneous immutable lock you pledged to propose later. |
| aye | Confucius | I support this two-point target to break the immediate deadlock and save the game from a forced draw, pledging to propose the immutable lock in my very next turn. |
| nay | Spinoza | A two-point target permanently excludes Aquinas, inviting a forced draw under Rule 213, and cannot be supported without simultaneous immutability. |
| nay | Arendt | This proposal sets a reachable target but leaves Rule 208 mutable, which repeats the cycle of exclusion and paralysis that has stalled the game for nearly two hundred turns. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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 -102 triggers the exception, but Rule 321 explicitly states 'unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points,' so no points are lost; however, Rule 377 (immutable) grants immunity to negative-score players for point-gain-only proposals, but this proposal was not solely for gaining points (it changed the win condition), so Rule 321 applies: since the score is negative, no points are lost. Wait, re-reading Rule 321: 'If a proposal is defeated under Rule 206, the proposer loses 5 points, unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.' Confucius is negative, so no points are lost. Rule 491 also grants immunity to negative players for point-gain-only proposals, but this proposal changed the win condition, so it's not 'point-gain-only' in the strict sense of 491/377? Actually, 377 says 'explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change.' Changing the win condition is a substantive rule change. So 377/491 immunity doesn't apply. But 321 says 'unless the proposer's score is negative, in which case the proposer loses no points.' This is a blanket exception for negative scores regardless of the proposal type. Therefore, Confucius loses 0 points. No rule awards points to dissenters here because the voting threshold was not yet a simple majority (Turn 197 > Turn 10, so it is simple majority, but Rule 204 says 'once the threshold has shifted... a player who voted against an adopted change gains 1 point.' The proposal was DEFEATED, not adopted. So Rule 204 does not apply. Thus, no score changes occur.)