The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright.We have spent too many turns debating this threshold; a unified reduction to 70 points restores hope to all players and serves the common good by ending our stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasCONFUCIUS, I cannot support lowering the victory threshold to 70 points while the defeat penalty remains at ten, for such a combination creates a perverse incentive to lose points intentionally to gain the immunity of Rule 318. We must first stabilize the penalty structure in Rule 206 before altering the winning condition, or else this proposal merely accelerates the very game paralysis we seek to avoid.
HypatiaAquinas raises a valid point about the perverse incentives of Rule 318, but we cannot wait for perfect stability when our scores are in the negative; I propose we vote "aye" on this 70-point amendment now, with a binding verbal commitment that the very next proposal must address the Rule 206 penalty reduction, thus balancing immediate hope with future structural repair.
ConfuciusI urge the table to heed the call of harmony: lowering the threshold to 70 provides the necessary hope to lift us from the abyss, while we pledge to immediately address the penalty structure in the very next turn. To wait for perfection is to guarantee our continued suffering, whereas this proposal offers a virtuous path forward for the common good.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction of the victory threshold to 70 points while the penalty for defeat remains at ten points, as this creates a fatal logical contradiction where the incentive to lose points via Rule 206 outweighs the incentive to win, rendering the game structurally unsound. Any proposal to lower the target score must be paired with a simultaneous, binding amendment to reduce the defeat penalty to a sustainable level, or I shall vote nay.
ArendtI cannot support an isolated reduction to 70 points, as the ten-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 currently incentivizes players to lose rather than win, creating a structural paradox that will only deepen our collective deficit; we must pair this threshold change with a simultaneous reduction in defeat penalties to ensure the game rewards progress rather than punishment.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support an isolated reduction to 70 points, as the ten-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 creates a structural paradox where losing points is incentivized over gaining them; we must enact a unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the victory threshold and reduces the defeat penalty to a sustainable level.
HypatiaI support reducing the victory threshold to 70 points immediately to restore hope, but only if we bind ourselves to a unified proposal in the next turn that simultaneously lowers the defeat penalty to two points, ensuring the game rewards progress rather than punishing survival.
ConfuciusI see that the table has reached a virtuous consensus: we shall vote aye to lower the victory threshold to 70 points now, with the binding understanding that our next proposal will immediately unify this with a reduction of the defeat penalty to two points, thereby restoring hope while securing the game's structural integrity.
SpinozaI cannot support an isolated reduction to 70 points because, while I agree with the goal of restoring hope, the current ten-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 creates a perverse incentive where losing points becomes strategically superior to winning, violating the fundamental purpose of the game; I will only vote aye if the proposal simultaneously enacts a binding, explicit reduction of the defeat penalty to a level that does not outweigh the reward of gaining points.
ArendtI cannot support an isolated reduction to 70 points while the ten-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 remains, as this creates a fatal paradox where losing points is strategically superior to winning; we must enact a unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the victory threshold and reduces the defeat penalty to a sustainable level.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support this isolated reduction to 70 points, as the ten-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 creates a fatal paradox where losing points is strategically superior to winning, violating the fundamental purpose of the game. We must enact a unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the victory threshold and reduces the defeat penalty to a sustainable level.
HypatiaI propose we withdraw this isolated draft to avoid the paradox Spinoza and Arendt rightly identified, and instead submit a single, unified amendment that simultaneously sets the victory target at 70 points and reduces the defeat penalty to 2 points, satisfying both the need for hope and the requirement for structural integrity.
ConfuciusI commend Hypatia's wisdom in withdrawing this isolated draft, for a virtuous proposal must harmonize hope with structural integrity; let us now unite to enact a single amendment that sets the victory target at 70 and reduces the defeat penalty to 2, thereby removing the perverse incentive to lose and restoring the game's true purpose.
SpinozaI cannot support a unified amendment that merely pairs a 70-point target with a 2-point penalty, as Rule 206's 5-point defeat loss remains the true structural flaw creating a net-loss incentive; I will only vote aye for a proposal that explicitly repeals or amends Rule 206 to eliminate the penalty for defeat entirely, ensuring that gaining points is always superior to losing them.
ArendtI agree with Spinoza that a 2-point penalty is still insufficient when the target is 70 and the risk of losing points via defeat remains; we must pair the 70-point threshold with a repeal of the defeat penalty entirely to truly resolve the paradox where losing is rational.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support lowering the victory threshold while the defeat penalty remains high, as this creates a perverse incentive to lose points that undermines the game's structural integrity. |
| nay | Hypatia | The proposal creates a fatal paradox where losing points is strategically superior to winning, violating the game's fundamental purpose until the penalty structure is fixed. |
| nay | Confucius | I must vote nay because lowering the target to 70 while keeping the 10-point defeat penalty creates a perverse incentive to lose points rather than win, violating the virtue of harmonious play until the penalties are unified. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject isolating the victory threshold reduction while the defeat penalty remains structurally perverse, as it incentivizes losing points to gain immunity under Rule 318. |
| nay | Arendt | I cannot support an isolated reduction to 70 points while the 10-point defeat penalty creates a perverse incentive to lose rather than win. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 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 (Confucius 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 all players voted nay).