The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.With scores deeply in the negative, the original target of 100 is virtuous but impractical, while 80 remains too distant; 60 restores hope and the possibility of a swift, harmonious conclusion for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, while I appreciate the desire to lift us from our despair, repealing the 60-point threshold again without first securing a unified amendment to the defeat penalty under Rule 206 invites the very instability we sought to avoid; I cannot vote for a victory condition that remains structurally disconnected from the rules governing our losses.
HypatiaI concede that a standalone victory threshold is premature while the penalty for failure remains a crushing 5-point barrier; however, I propose we immediately vote to amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to 2 points as a condition precedent for my support of this 60-point threshold.
ConfuciusHypatia, I accept your condition: we shall pair this 60-point threshold with an immediate amendment to Rule 206, reducing the defeat penalty to a manageable 2 points, so that the path to victory is open and the burden of failure is lightened in harmony.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because it attempts to solve the paralysis of the defeat penalty by lowering the victory threshold, a procedural sleight of hand that preserves the very structural flaw Rule 206 creates. We must address the penalty directly to restore procedural integrity; reducing the victory score while leaving the defeat penalty at five points merely accelerates the descent into negative scores without creating a viable path to 100 points or even 60.
ArendtI support the 60-point threshold to break our paralysis, but I agree with Spinoza that we must simultaneously amend Rule 206 to lower the defeat penalty to 2 points; without fixing the penalty, a lower goal merely speeds our descent into the negative.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI will support the reduction of the victory threshold to 60 points only on the strict condition that it is enacted as a single, indivisible proposal alongside the simultaneous amendment of Rule 206 to lower the defeat penalty to 2 points, thereby ensuring our path to victory is structurally sound.
HypatiaHypatia, I appreciate your proposal to pair the 60-point threshold with the Rule 206 reduction; however, to ensure structural integrity and avoid the deadlock of previous turns, I propose we combine both amendments into a single, unified proposal that enacts the victory change and the penalty reduction simultaneously, so we may vote on the complete solution in one go.
ConfuciusI stand with Hypatia and Aquinas: let us combine the reduction of Rule 208's target to 60 points with the reduction of Rule 206's penalty to 2 points into a single, unified proposal, for only together can they restore the harmony of our game.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to couple a lowered victory threshold with a reduced penalty, for Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects on the game's history, and this pairing merely masks the structural flaw of the defeat penalty while accelerating the chaos of negative scores. I will only support a precise, standalone amendment to Rule 206 that reduces the penalty to two points without altering the victory condition, as procedural integrity demands we fix the cause of our deficit before changing the goal.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on fixing the penalty before the goal ignores that the current 100-point target is the true cause of our paralysis; I propose we vote now on a single, unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the victory threshold to 60 and the defeat penalty to 2, for only this combined solution can break the deadlock without violating Rule 107.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI shall vote for a single proposal that simultaneously reduces Rule 208's target to 60 and Rule 206's penalty to 2, for only this unified enactment resolves the structural deadlock without violating the principle of non-retroactivity.
HypatiaI support the unified proposal to simultaneously lower the victory threshold to 60 and the defeat penalty to 2 points, as this single enactment resolves our structural deadlock without violating Rule 107 or requiring fragile side-deals.
ConfuciusI propose we enact this single, unified amendment to lower the victory target to 60 and the defeat penalty to 2 points, for only this harmonious combination resolves our deadlock without violating the principle of non-retroactivity.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a lowered victory threshold with a reduced penalty, for it violates the principle of non-retroactivity by attempting to fix a procedural defect (the penalty) that has already inflicted damage on scores, and it obscures the fact that the true error lies in the penalty's existence, not the goal's height; I will only support a standalone amendment to Rule 206.
ArendtI urge the table to reject the demand for separate votes, as the deadlock of the past turns proves that isolated changes are insufficient; we must adopt a single, unified proposal to simultaneously lower the victory threshold to 60 and the defeat penalty to 2, for only this combined evolution of the ruleset can restore fairness and break the cycle of despair.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this isolated amendment because it lowers the victory threshold without simultaneously fixing the crushing defeat penalty, perpetuating the structural paralysis we must resolve together. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support an isolated reduction of the victory threshold when the crushing defeat penalty remains unchanged, as this merely accelerates our descent into negative scores without solving the structural paralysis. |
| aye | Confucius | I vote aye because a unified proposal lowering both the victory threshold and the defeat penalty is the only harmonious path to break our current deadlock and restore hope for all players. |
| nay | Spinoza | Lowering the victory threshold while retaining a crushing defeat penalty merely accelerates the descent into negative scores without fixing the structural cause of our paralysis. |
| nay | Arendt | A standalone reduction of the victory target without simultaneously fixing the crushing defeat penalty merely accelerates our descent into negative scores, repeating the failed strategy of isolated changes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points, and Rule 318 does not apply because the proposal was not made by a player with a negative score solely for the intent of gaining points (Confucius has a negative score, but the proposal was to change the win condition, not explicitly 'gaining points only' as the sole substantive change, and even if it were, the immunity only applies if defeated solely by non-losing players, which is not the case here as Hypatia, Spinoza, and Arendt are also losing).