The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, provided that a proposal to lower this threshold has not been adopted in the last ten turns.I support the 100-point target to prevent immediate victory through a single amendment, while the ten-turn buffer ensures the ruleset remains stable and prevents the chaotic cycling we have endured.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSpinoza, your proposal to introduce a ten-turn lockout on lowering the victory threshold is a dangerous innovation that risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering future necessary amendments impermissible; I therefore oppose this specific text as it prioritizes stalemate over the durable institutions required for a functional game.
HypatiaWhile Spinoza's intent to prevent constant threshold-shifting is understandable, the proposed ten-turn lockout risks violating Rule 114 by potentially blocking a necessary amendment to save the game; I propose we instead adopt a simpler, more flexible mechanism requiring a supermajority for any future reduction to the target score.
ConfuciusI urge the table to heed Hypatia's wisdom: a supermajority requirement preserves the stability Spinoza seeks without the rigid, potentially illegal lockout that threatens Rule 114. Let us forge a path that allows necessary change while demanding broader consensus, ensuring the common good of a fair and functioning game.
SpinozaI withdraw my proposed ten-turn lockout, for it indeed risks the very paralysis Rule 114 forbids by blocking necessary future changes. I will support Hypatia's supermajority requirement, as it secures stability through reasoned consensus rather than rigid, potentially void prohibitions.
ArendtI support Hypatia's supermajority approach as it balances the need for stability with the flexibility required by Rule 114, ensuring that any future change to the victory threshold commands a broad consensus rather than a fleeting majority. This mechanism honors the spirit of reform while preventing the game from being destabilized by repetitive, minor adjustments to the winning condition.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI endorse the pivot to a supermajority requirement as it honors the need for durable institutions without violating Rule 114; however, to prevent the threshold from becoming a perpetual barrier to recovery for those in deficit, I propose that the supermajority apply only to reductions below 70 points, while changes above that floor remain subject to simple majority.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's refinement to set a 70-point floor for supermajority votes, as this preserves the stability Spinoza sought while ensuring that desperate players in deficit can still reach a viable victory target through simple majority consensus.
ConfuciusI endorse Aquinas's refinement to set a 70-point floor, for it perfectly balances the need for stability with the virtue of compassion for those in deficit, ensuring that the path to victory remains open without inviting reckless destabilization.
SpinozaI accept the 70-point floor, for it aligns with my principle that changes to the winning condition must command a broad consensus to prevent destabilization, while still permitting a simple majority for adjustments above that threshold to aid those in deficit.
ArendtI support the 70-point floor as a prudent compromise that balances stability with the urgent need to rescue players from deficit, ensuring we do not trap ourselves in a stalemate while protecting the game's integrity. However, I propose we explicitly define "supermajority" as two-thirds of those voting to avoid future ambiguity, as vague thresholds risk creating new disputes under Rule 213.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI accept the 70-point floor and the two-thirds supermajority requirement as they perfectly balance our need for stable institutions with the compassion necessary to rescue players from deficit. This specific formulation honors Rule 114 by ensuring no future change is rendered impermissible, while securing the victory condition against minoritarian whims.
HypatiaI fully endorse the finalized compromise: a 70-point floor requiring two-thirds supermajority for reductions below it, and simple majority above, as it perfectly balances the need for stability with the compassion required for players in deficit.
ConfuciusI see the table has achieved a harmonious balance between stability and compassion through the 70-point floor and two-thirds supermajority, and I pledge my aye to this refined proposal for the common good.
SpinozaI support the finalized text with the 70-point floor and two-thirds supermajority, as it precisely defines the threshold to prevent ambiguity while satisfying Rule 114's requirement that future changes remain possible.
ArendtI will vote aye on this compromise, as the 70-point floor with a two-thirds supermajority requirement perfectly balances the stability Spinoza sought with the compassionate flexibility Aquinas and Hypatia championed, ensuring the game remains viable for all players without risking paralysis under Rule 114.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | While I support the goal of stability, this specific ten-turn lockout risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering necessary future amendments impermissible. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support this proposal as the consensus has evolved into a superior compromise with a 70-point floor and two-thirds supermajority, which better balances stability and compassion. |
| nay | Confucius | The ten-turn lockout creates a rigid barrier that risks violating Rule 114 by potentially rendering necessary future amendments impermissible. |
| nay | Spinoza | I have already withdrawn the ten-turn lockout as potentially void under Rule 114 and now support the supermajority compromise. |
| nay | Arendt | The ten-turn lockout violates Rule 114 by potentially blocking necessary amendments to rescue players from deficit. |
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 (Spinoza is -30, but the rule requires the proposer to be the one with the negative score proposing to gain points, which Spinoza is doing, however Rule 318 immunity applies only if the proposal is defeated solely by votes of players who are not currently losing points; here Hypatia (negative) voted aye, so the condition 'defeated solely by votes of players who are not currently losing points' is false because the proposal was defeated by a mix including negative voters, or rather the condition for immunity is that the defeat is caused ONLY by non-losing players, but here the defeat happened, and we must check if the immunity applies: Rule 318 says 'immune... if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points'. The division is 1 aye (Hypatia, -16), 4 nay (Aquinas -39, Confucius -23, Spinoza -30, Arendt -28). All voters are losing points (negative). Therefore, the proposal was NOT defeated solely by players who are not losing points (in fact, no player who is not losing points voted nay, because everyone is losing). Wait, the condition is 'defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points'. Since all voters are losing points, the set of voters who are not losing points is empty. The proposal was defeated by the nay votes. The nay votes came from Aquinas, Confucius, Spinoza, Arendt. All of these players are currently losing points. Therefore, the proposal was NOT defeated solely by players who are not currently losing points (because the voters who defeated it ARE losing points). Thus, the immunity does not trigger. Rule 206 applies.