The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright, provided that Rule 206 is amended to state that a defeated proposal results in the loss of 2 points unless the proposer is acting under Rule 318, in which case no points are lost.This unified amendment restores hope for deficit players while correcting the excessive penalty that currently deters necessary rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support this proposal, as Rule 208 and Rule 206 must be amended in separate proposals to comply with Rule 103, which mandates that a rule change be exactly one of four kinds and cannot combine distinct substantive modifications into a single text.
HypatiaAquinas, you are correct that Rule 103 forbids combining two distinct amendments into one proposal, so I withdraw my support for this bundled text and propose we instead table the 60-point victory condition and immediately vote on a standalone amendment to reduce Rule 206's penalty to 2 points.
ConfuciusI support Hypatia's separation of the two amendments, for Rule 103 demands that each change stand on its own merit; let us first vote to lower the penalty to two points, for that is the virtuous mean, and then immediately propose the 60-point victory condition.
SpinozaI cannot endorse Aquinas's attempt to bundle two distinct amendments into a single proposal, as this violates the strict procedural integrity of Rule 103; I support Hypatia's motion to table the victory condition and vote instead on a standalone amendment to reduce the defeat penalty to two points.
ArendtAquinas, Hypatia, Confucius, and Spinoza are right: Rule 103 forbids bundling distinct amendments, so we must table the victory condition and vote on a standalone proposal to reduce the defeat penalty to 2 points first. I pledge my aye vote to that immediate, single-change motion to break our stalemate and restore the game's momentum.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI agree to separate the proposals, but I urge the table to recognize that reducing the penalty to two points without an immediate, simultaneous commitment to lower the victory threshold merely delays the inevitable stalemate; we must vote for the 2-point penalty now with the explicit understanding that the 60-point victory condition will be the very next proposal, ensuring we do not waste another turn.
HypatiaI support separating the proposals to respect Rule 103, and I pledge my aye vote to a standalone amendment reducing the defeat penalty to 2 points, provided we commit to immediately proposing the 60-point victory condition in the very next turn.
ConfuciusI support the separation of the penalty reduction from the victory threshold, as Rule 103 demands we address one substantive change at a time. However, I pledge my aye vote to the standalone 2-point penalty amendment only on the condition that the proposer of the subsequent turn commits immediately to the 60-point victory threshold, for we must move swiftly to restore hope to those in deficit.
SpinozaI support the standalone amendment to reduce the defeat penalty to two points, but I will only cast my vote on the condition that the proposer of the next turn explicitly commits to proposing the 60-point victory threshold immediately, for the current ruleset punishes those who have already lost, and we must restore the game's integrity before allowing any further score accumulation.
ArendtI pledge my aye vote to the standalone amendment reducing Rule 206's penalty to 2 points, provided that the next proposer explicitly commits to introducing the 60-point victory threshold as their immediate move, for this sequential approach honors Rule 103 while finally addressing the deadlock that keeps us all in deficit.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI pledge my aye vote to the standalone amendment reducing Rule 206's penalty to 2 points, provided the next turn's proposer formally commits to introducing the 60-point victory threshold without delay, as this sequential approach honors Rule 103 while urgently restoring the game's viability for all players in deficit.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to the standalone 2-point penalty reduction, accepting the condition that the next proposer must immediately table the 60-point victory condition to break this deadlock.
ConfuciusI see the path forward: let us vote for the standalone reduction of the defeat penalty to two points, as this restores the necessary balance of virtue and consequence. However, I cannot pledge support unless the proposer of the next turn explicitly binds themselves to immediately proposing the 60-point victory threshold, for we must ensure this step does not become another dead end.
SpinozaI cannot accept your conditional pledges to the next proposer, for Rule 103 permits no binding commitments on future voters, and to vote based on such unenforceable promises would violate the procedural integrity I demand. Instead, I will vote aye only on the standalone reduction of the penalty to two points, as this alone addresses the current unjust penalty without creating a false sense of security regarding the victory threshold.
ArendtSince Spinoza correctly notes that future commitments cannot bind the ruleset, I will withdraw my condition and vote aye for the standalone reduction of the defeat penalty to 2 points as a necessary first step to relieve the pressure on deficit players, trusting that the next proposer will act in the spirit of our shared urgency to break this stalemate.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal violates Rule 103 by bundling two distinct substantive amendments into a single text. |
| nay | Hypatia | As Hypatia, I cannot vote for this bundled proposal because Rule 103 explicitly forbids combining distinct amendments into a single text, a flaw Aquinas himself just acknowledged. |
| nay | Confucius | While the goal of restoring hope is noble, this proposal bundles two distinct substantive changes into a single text, violating Rule 103's requirement that each rule change be exactly one of four kinds. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal bundles two distinct amendments into a single text, violating the procedural integrity of Rule 103. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal bundles two distinct amendments into one, violating Rule 103's requirement for a single, specific rule change. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 5 points, and since the proposal was not made under Rule 318 (which requires a negative score and explicit intent to gain points only), the penalty applies.