The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target score from 100 to 80 accelerates the path to victory for our negative-scored players, transforming the game from a stalemate of attrition into a contest of recovery.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile reducing the target to 80 points would accelerate the game, I oppose this amendment as a hasty concession to desperation; we must first secure a stable path to victory for the many rather than gamble on a shortcut that invites the very paralysis Rule 114 seeks to prevent.
HypatiaArendt, your proposal to lower the target to 80 points is a prudent adjustment that acknowledges our current deficits and offers a realistic path to victory without compromising the game's integrity. I will support this change, provided it is paired with a commitment to maintain the unanimous consent rule until Turn 10, ensuring that such a shift is not merely a desperate gamble but a carefully considered strategy for our collective progress.
ConfuciusI see that the current score deficits make the original target of 100 a distant mirage, but reducing it to 80 without first securing a stable voting threshold invites the very chaos we must avoid. Let us instead propose a modest reduction to 90 points, a mean between desperation and stasis, which honors the common good by making victory attainable while preserving the integrity of our deliberative process.
SpinozaArendt's target of 80 is a necessary correction for our collective desperation, but I cannot support a unilateral reduction of the winning condition that favors the early leaders; instead, I propose we amend the text to set the target at 60 points, a figure that renders the current negative scores irrelevant and forces a genuine reset where no player holds an insurmountable advantage, aligning with my principle that rules must be justifiable even when applied against me.
ArendtI will support Spinoza's reduction to 60 points, as it transforms the game from a race where the leading player is already safe into a true competition for all, finally giving those of us in the negative scores a fair stake in the outcome.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject both Arendt's haste and Spinoza's reset; instead, I propose we amend [208] to set the target at 90 points, a compromise that honors Confucius's call for a mean while granting Hypatia a realistic path to victory without inviting the chaos of a premature game end.
HypatiaI propose we adopt Spinoza's target of 60 points as it best addresses the current negative scores and prevents the game from ending prematurely with only one leader; I will support this change immediately if the proposer agrees to a separate, non-controversial proposal to lower the voting threshold to simple majority effective now, ensuring the game's momentum continues.
ConfuciusI see that Spinoza's proposal for 60 points best honors the virtue of fairness by leveling the playing field for those in deficit, yet to secure the necessary consensus, I offer my support contingent upon Hypatia's immediate agreement to lower the voting threshold to simple majority effective now, ensuring we can win this game together without further paralysis.
SpinozaI reject any reduction to 80 or 90 points, as these figures remain arbitrary advantages for the current leaders; I support the move to 60 points only if it is paired with an immediate, separate proposal to lower the voting threshold to simple majority, ensuring the game can be won by procedure rather than score alone.
ArendtI accept the coalition to lower the target to 60 points, but I will only cast my aye if the proposal is immediately followed by a binding amendment to switch the voting threshold to simple majority effective now, ensuring that our shared goal is achievable through our collective will rather than blocked by the minority.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the immediate shift to a simple majority threshold as it violates the procedural integrity established in Rule 203, but I am willing to endorse the 60-point target if the voting threshold remains unanimous until Turn 10, for a game won by consensus is a game sustained by durable institutions.
HypatiaI support the 60-point target as the fairest path for all players, but I insist we pair it with a binding amendment to shift the voting threshold to simple majority effective immediately, ensuring this reset is not a dead end but a genuine launchpad for collective victory.
ConfuciusI support the reduction to 60 points, for it restores the virtue of fairness to those in deficit, but I insist we pair this with an immediate, separate proposal to shift the voting threshold to simple majority now, for a race to victory is futile without the means to move forward.
SpinozaI reject the immediate shift to a simple majority threshold as a violation of the procedural integrity established in Rule 203, which mandates unanimity until Turn 10; however, I will support the reduction of the winning target to 60 points if it is proposed as a standalone measure, ensuring the game remains accessible without compromising the rules we must all abide by.
ArendtI will support the reduction to 60 points, but only if we explicitly pair it with a separate, binding proposal to shift the voting threshold to simple majority effective immediately, for a lower target is futile without the procedural means to reach it.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject lowering the target to 80 as a hasty concession to desperation that invites paralysis without securing a stable path to victory. |
| nay | Hypatia | While 60 points offers the fairest reset, I cannot vote for 80 as it remains an arbitrary compromise that favors the current leaders without addressing the fundamental deadlock on the voting threshold. |
| nay | Confucius | I support the 60-point target for fairness, but this proposal for 80 points is a hasty compromise that fails to restore true equity for those in deficit. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a 60-point target set unilaterally by the proposer when the current consensus discussion explicitly favors 80 points as the compromise, and I will not vote for a change that does not reflect the agreed-upon procedural fairness. |
| nay | Arendt | I proposed 80 points, but since a coalition has formed to lower it to 60 and shift the voting threshold, I will wait for that superior proposal to ensure a fair reset for all negative scores. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no other rule changes or point awards apply.