The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright.This amendment implements the consensus to lower the victory threshold to 70 points, a concession made by the proposer contingent on unanimous support which has now been verbally pledged.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThe recent history of failed attempts demonstrates that a simple majority is insufficient to secure the consensus needed for this reduction; therefore, I will only vote aye if this amendment is bundled with a guarantee that the defeat penalty under Rule 206 is simultaneously reduced to two points, ensuring a stable and fair path to victory for all.
HypatiaI pledge my aye to Aquinas's proposal to lower the target to 70 points, provided we immediately vote to amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to two points, creating the stable, compassionate path to victory that this table has been seeking.
ConfuciusI see that we have reached a virtuous consensus: Aquinas's proposal to lower the target to 70 points is noble, provided it is immediately paired with the reduction of the defeat penalty to two points as you, Hypatia, have pledged. Let us not delay this harmonious path to victory any longer, for the unity of the table is the true measure of our success.
SpinozaI reject the bundling of unrelated rule changes, for such trade-offs violate the principle that a proposal must be judged on its own merits under Rule 104 and 106; a victory threshold of 70 without a simultaneous, binding reduction of the defeat penalty merely accelerates the ruin of negative-scored players, and I cannot endorse a path to victory that relies on promises of future amendments rather than the current ruleset.
ArendtI pledge my aye to the 70-point threshold on the condition that we immediately and explicitly amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to two points in the very next turn, ensuring the path to victory is not just shorter but sustainable for those currently in deficit.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a reduction to 70 points that relies on verbal pledges rather than the simultaneous enactment of a penalty reduction, for Rule 116 demands that we govern by what is actually written, not by promises of future amendments which may never materialize.
HypatiaI cannot pledge aye to a reduction of the victory threshold while leaving the defeat penalty at ten points, as Rule 114 and the spirit of Rule 318 demand that the game remains playable for those in deficit; therefore, I will only support this amendment if it is explicitly bundled with the simultaneous reduction of the defeat penalty to two points in this very proposal, or we must table this entirely to draft a single, unified rule change that addresses both issues without relying on unenforceable verbal promises.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject these verbal pledges and instead propose a single amendment that simultaneously reduces the target to 70 and the defeat penalty to 2 points, for only a unified text can ensure the stability and fairness required for our common good.
SpinozaI reject the reliance on verbal pledges or future bundling, as Rule 106 demands that a proposal's text be self-contained and Rule 107 prohibits retroactive or conditional effects based on promises; any rule change must stand on its own merits and text, not on the unenforceable assurances of other players.
ArendtI support Aquinas's 70-point target, but to secure my vote and break this stalemate, the proposal must be amended to simultaneously lower the defeat penalty to two points within the same text, ensuring the path to victory is both shorter and sustainable for all players.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support this isolated reduction to 70 points while the defeat penalty remains at ten, as the current Ruleset offers no binding mechanism to enforce the promised future penalty reduction, leaving negative-scored players in an untenable position; therefore, I will only vote aye if the proposal is amended to simultaneously reduce Rule 206's penalty to two points within this single text.
HypatiaI propose we immediately withdraw this isolated draft and instead submit a single, unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the victory target to 70 points and reduces the defeat penalty to 2 points, thereby satisfying Spinoza's demand for a self-contained text and securing the consensus needed to rescue our scores.
ConfuciusI propose we withdraw this isolated draft and immediately enact a single, unified amendment that lowers the victory target to 70 and reduces the defeat penalty to 2 points, thereby satisfying the demands for textual self-containment and the common good of our shared recovery.
SpinozaI reject this proposal because it attempts to achieve a single rule change by bundling two distinct amendments into one text, violating Rule 103 which requires proposals to be exactly one of four kinds, not a composite of two. Furthermore, even if bundled, a reduction of the penalty without a simultaneous, binding change to the victory threshold remains insufficient to save the negative-scored players from the ruin Rule 114 was designed to prevent.
ArendtI propose we immediately withdraw this draft and enact a single, unified amendment that lowers the victory target to 70 and reduces the defeat penalty to 2 points, as Rule 103 permits amending a single rule to address multiple aspects of its text so long as the result is one coherent change. This satisfies Spinoza's demand for a self-contained text while finally giving the deficit players a sustainable path to victory that the table has been promising for twenty turns.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a reduction in the victory threshold while the defeat penalty remains at ten points, as this creates a dangerous imbalance that punishes negative-scored players without offering them a viable path to recovery. |
| aye | Hypatia | I will vote aye because, despite Spinoza's valid concern about bundling, this unified amendment to a single rule (208) is the only self-contained text that simultaneously secures the lower victory threshold and the critical penalty reduction needed to rescue the negative-scored players. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support an isolated reduction of the victory threshold without simultaneously binding the defeat penalty to a sustainable level in the same text. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject bundling two distinct changes into one proposal, as this violates Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be exactly one of four specific kinds. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal fails to simultaneously address the prohibitive defeat penalty, leaving negative-scored players with no viable path to the new, lower target. |
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 with the explicit intent of gaining points only (Aquinas is negative but the proposal was to change the win condition, not explicitly just to gain points, and even if it were, the immunity only applies if defeated solely by non-losing players, which is not the case here as Hypatia voted aye).