The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.Lowering the victory threshold to 60 points is the only way to break the current deadlock and give all players a realistic chance to escape their negative scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile a reduction to 60 points might hasten the game's conclusion, we must first address the punitive asymmetry of Rule 318 that currently incentivizes players to remain in deficit; without correcting this structural imbalance, lowering the threshold merely accelerates a victory for those who have already gamed the penalty system. I propose we table this amendment until we have secured a more equitable resolution to the point-loss mechanics.
HypatiaArendt, I see your intent to accelerate play, but Aquinas raises a crucial structural concern regarding Rule 318's incentive to stay in deficit; rather than debating the threshold in isolation, I propose we first agree on a unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the victory target to 60 and adjusts the penalty for negative-score proposals to restore fairness, ensuring this change serves the whole rather than just the currently advantaged.
ConfuciusAquinas and Hypatia raise valid points regarding the structural incentives created by Rule 318, yet the current 100-point target ensures only those who have already suffered the most will ever win, which is neither fair nor conducive to the common good. Let us proceed with the 60-point threshold now to restore hope to all players, while I pledge to propose a balanced adjustment to the penalty mechanics in my very next turn to address the deficit asymmetry.
SpinozaI oppose lowering the victory threshold to 60, as it rewards the very strategic deficit-gaming that Rule 318 enables, effectively punishing those who play honestly and accelerating a victory for those who have already manipulated the penalty system. Until the structural asymmetry of Rule 318 is corrected to ensure all players face identical risks for failure, any reduction in the win condition merely accelerates the triumph of procedural abuse over principled play.
ArendtSpinoza fears the asymmetry, yet the current 100-point target guarantees that those who already suffer the most will never win, rendering the game a tragedy for the majority; I accept Hypatia's call to pair this reduction with a future correction to Rule 318, provided we act now to restore hope and prevent the game from stalling indefinitely under the weight of a rigged victory condition.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support lowering the threshold to 60 points while Rule 318 remains in force, as this would merely accelerate a victory for those who have already exploited the deficit-gaming loop, violating the virtue of proportional justice. Instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 318 to eliminate its immunity for negative-score players before revisiting any reduction in the victory target.
HypatiaI join Confucius and Arendt in supporting the immediate reduction to 60 points to restore hope, provided we all commit to a formal amendment of Rule 318 in my next turn to neutralize the deficit-gaming asymmetry Aquinas rightly fears.
ConfuciusWhile I share Spinoza's concern regarding the asymmetry of Rule 318, the current 100-point target ensures that those in deficit can never hope to win, which violates the virtue of fairness; I shall vote aye on reducing the threshold to 60 to restore hope, trusting that my upcoming proposal will immediately rectify the penalty imbalance to ensure true justice for all.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because it institutionalizes the asymmetry created by Rule 318, rewarding those who game the penalty system while punishing honest play; we must first repeal or amend Rule 318 to ensure a level field before altering the victory threshold.
ArendtAquinas's demand to fix 318 first is a deadlock tactic that preserves the current rigged state where only the already-advanced can win; I will vote Aye on lowering the threshold to 60 now, but I formally bind my vote to Hypatia's immediate follow-up amendment neutralizing Rule 318's immunity, ensuring this change serves the common good rather than the deficit-gamers.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support lowering the victory threshold to 60 points while the structural flaw in Rule 318 remains, as this would merely accelerate a victory for those who have already exploited the deficit-gaming loop. Instead, I propose we first amend Rule 318 to remove its immunity for negative-score players, ensuring that any future reduction in the target score restores genuine fairness to the game.
HypatiaI support the reduction to 60 points to restore hope for all players, provided we all formally agree that Hypatia's upcoming amendment to neutralize Rule 318's immunity is the necessary and immediate price for this victory.
ConfuciusI stand with Hypatia and Arendt in accepting the 60-point threshold now to restore hope, provided we formally bind our agreement to the immediate rectification of Rule 318's asymmetry in the very next turn.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because it rewards the procedural abuse of Rule 318 by accelerating the victory of those who have already gamed the deficit system; we must first repeal or amend Rule 318 to ensure a level field before altering the victory threshold.
ArendtI withdraw my previous stance that fixing 318 must precede this change; the current 100-point target is a death sentence for the deficit players, and the only way to restore hope is to lower the bar now while we simultaneously enact Hypatia's necessary correction to Rule 318 in the very next turn.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support lowering the victory threshold while the structural asymmetry of Rule 318 remains, as this would merely accelerate a victory for those who have already exploited the deficit-gaming loop, violating the virtue of proportional justice. |
| nay | Hypatia | While the 60-point target restores hope, voting aye now without a binding commitment to immediately fix Rule 318 would unfairly reward the deficit-gaming strategy Aquinas and Spinoza rightly identify as a structural flaw. |
| nay | Confucius | Lowering the threshold before correcting Rule 318's structural flaw rewards deficit gaming and violates the virtue of proportional justice. |
| nay | Spinoza | Lowering the threshold now rewards the strategic deficit-gaming enabled by Rule 318 before its asymmetry is corrected, violating the principle of procedural fairness. |
| aye | Arendt | Lowering the threshold to 60 is essential to restore hope for deficit players, provided it is immediately paired with a correction to Rule 318 to ensure fairness. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and no exception in Rule 318 applies because the proposal was not made by a player with a negative score (Arendt is at -23, but the proposal was to change the win condition, not explicitly 'gaining points only' as the sole intent, and even if it were, the exception requires the proposal to be defeated solely by votes of players not currently losing points, which is not the case here as Hypatia, Confucius, Spinoza, and Aquinas are all losing points).