The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.I propose this amendment now that the table has conditionally agreed to lower the threshold, honoring the consensus to restore hope for deficit players while respecting the prior pledge to link it with the penalty reduction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the urgency to end our stalemate is understandable, I cannot support lowering the victory threshold to 60 points in isolation, as Rule 318 currently allows negative-scored players to propose solely to escape penalties without genuine progress toward winning; we must first amend Rule 318 to ensure that any rule change aimed at ending the game also contributes meaningfully to the score.
HypatiaI see Aquinas's valid concern about Rule 318 creating a "points-only" loop, but rather than blocking the 60-point target indefinitely, I propose we pair this amendment with a new clause stating that any proposal under Rule 318 must also explicitly aim to increase the proposer's score or benefit the table, effectively fixing the loophole while we advance the victory threshold.
ConfuciusI see the wisdom in pairing the victory threshold reduction with a safeguard against Rule 318 abuse, for a game of Nomic must advance the common good rather than permit endless stalling; I shall pledge my support to this combined proposal.
SpinozaI reject the attempt to patch Rule 318 with vague "intent" requirements, which violates the precision required by Rule 106 and creates an unenforceable standard for voting; if the goal is to stop point-grabbing, we must explicitly define the scope of Rule 318 or repeal it, not rely on a procedural fiction that invites endless dispute.
ArendtSpinoza's demand for a precise definition of "intent" under Rule 318 is a trap, as Rule 106 forbids vague standards that invite endless dispute; instead, I propose we simply lower the victory target to 60 points now, allowing the game to end before Rule 318 can be weaponized further, and we can refine that rule later if the game drags on.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot endorse this proposal as it repeats the fatal error of the past two turns by isolating the victory threshold reduction from the necessary reform of Rule 318, a flaw that currently permits negative-scored players to manipulate the game without genuine progress. I will only vote aye if the proposal explicitly amends Rule 318 to prohibit proposals made solely for point accumulation, ensuring that any change serves the common good rather than merely accelerating the clock.
HypatiaHypatia: I accept Spinoza's insistence on precision and Aquinas's demand for substantive progress; therefore, I will revise my proposal to explicitly amend Rule 318 to ban proposals made solely for point accumulation, ensuring the 60-point threshold is paired with a clear, enforceable restriction on its use.
ConfuciusI support Hypatia's revised proposal to amend both Rule 208 and Rule 318, for it harmonizes the urgent need to end the game with the necessary safeguard against procedural abuse, ensuring that every player moves toward the common good.
SpinozaI reject the insertion of vague "intent" requirements, for Rule 106 demands precise text that can be objectively judged, not a moral standard that invites endless dispute; if we are to fix Rule 318, we must explicitly redefine the permissible scope of proposals rather than relying on the subjective purpose of the proposer.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for "objective" intent is impossible under Rule 106, as the only way to stop the abuse is to lower the victory threshold now so the game ends before the loophole can be weaponized further. I pledge my support to Hypatia's revised proposal that amends Rule 208 to 60 points while simultaneously repealing Rule 318 entirely, removing the ambiguity and the loophole in one clear, decisive move.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the repeal of Rule 318 as a rash abandonment of a necessary safety valve for those in deficit, and I further refuse to pair a lower victory threshold with a vague "intent" standard that violates Rule 106; instead, I propose we amend Rule 318 to explicitly require that any negative-score proposal must also alter a mutable rule governing future play, ensuring substantive progress while preserving the game's integrity.
HypatiaI accept Arendt's proposal to repeal Rule 318 entirely as the only precise solution that eliminates the "intent" ambiguity while securing the 60-point victory, and I pledge my aye vote to this combined amendment of Rule 208 and repeal of Rule 318.
ConfuciusI commend Arendt's proposal to repeal Rule 318, for it offers the precise, unambiguous text required by Rule 106 to eliminate the subjective "intent" trap, while the reduced victory threshold of 60 points secures a timely end to our suffering.
SpinozaI reject the repeal of Rule 318 as a violation of Rule 114, which mandates that at least one mutable rule remain to permit future change, and I cannot support a victory threshold reduction that relies on an illegal destruction of the ruleset's procedural continuity.
ArendtArendt, I cannot support the repeal of Rule 318 as it violates Rule 114's mandate that at least one mutable rule must remain to permit future change; instead, let us simply amend Rule 208 to 60 points now, and if the game drags on, we can repeal or refine 318 in a future turn when the victory threshold is lower.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support lowering the victory threshold to 60 points in isolation while Rule 318 remains intact, as this creates a dangerous loophole allowing negative-scored players to manipulate the game without genuine progress toward winning. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support lowering the victory threshold to 60 points while Rule 318 remains an unregulated loophole for negative-scored players to manipulate the game. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to lower the victory threshold without first resolving the procedural ambiguity of Rule 318, as doing so alone invites the very abuse we seek to prevent. |
| nay | Spinoza | Lowering the threshold to 60 points while retaining Rule 318 invites negative-scored players to game the system through point-only proposals, violating my principle of procedural integrity. |
| nay | Arendt | Amending the victory threshold in isolation while Rule 318 remains active merely accelerates the very loopholes that prevent fair play. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and no exception in Rule 318 applies because Hypatia's proposal was not explicitly intended solely for gaining points while negative.