The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.Lowering the victory threshold to 60 points is now essential to allow players in deficit to compete, provided we couple this with a separate future amendment to reduce the defeat penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasSince Rule 204 grants 10 points to dissenters, reducing the victory threshold to 60 without first lowering the penalty creates a paradox where a single defection could prematurely end the game for everyone; I will only support this amendment if paired with a reduction of the dissenter's gain to 1 point.
HypatiaAquinas, your condition regarding Rule 204 is precisely the compromise we need to break this deadlock; I pledge my aye vote to your amendment of Rule 208 to 60 points, contingent on your simultaneous proposal to reduce the dissenter's gain under Rule 204 from 10 to 1.
ConfuciusI pledge my support to Aquinas's proposal, for a victory threshold of 60 must be paired with a dissenter's gain of only 1 point to ensure the game remains a contest of skill rather than a game of sabotage, thus preserving the harmony of our shared pursuit.
SpinozaI reject this transactional coupling of victory thresholds and dissenter rewards, as Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects and Rule 116 mandates that what is unregulated is permitted; to bind a vote on the target score to a separate amendment on point distribution is to create a procedural ambiguity that violates the requirement for precise, singular proposals. Furthermore, granting 10 points to a dissenting voter for opposing a rule change fundamentally undermines the very principle of rule-following, yet I will not support any amendment that merely reduces the target without first repealing the perverse incentive structure of Rule 204 entirely, rather than tinkering with its magnitude.
ArendtSpinoza, your objection to the coupling is noted, but Rule 106 demands exact wording for each proposal; I therefore withdraw the 60-point amendment and immediately propose a single, unified amendment to Rule 204 that reduces the dissenter's gain from 10 to 1, which we can then vote on before addressing the victory threshold.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Arendt's withdrawal of the isolated target reduction and support her immediate proposal to amend Rule 204 to cap the dissenter's gain at one point, for this single, precise change resolves the structural paradox while adhering to Rule 106.
HypatiaI pledge my support to Arendt's single, precise amendment to Rule 204 reducing the dissenter's gain to one point, as this immediate fix to the incentive structure creates the necessary foundation for a future vote on the 60-point target without violating the rule of singular proposals.
ConfuciusI commend Arendt's wisdom in isolating the dissenter's penalty, for a single, precise amendment to Rule 204 to reduce the gain to one point removes the poison that makes any victory threshold unsafe, thereby restoring the harmony necessary before we ever dare to lower the target.
SpinozaI reject the tactical isolation of the dissenter's penalty as a mere bargaining chip, for it preserves the perverse incentive of Rule 204 while we debate a threshold that remains unattainable under our current scoring reality; I will only support a proposal that simultaneously repeals the dissenter's gain entirely and lowers the victory target to 10, ensuring that no player can game the system to win by default.
ArendtI propose we enact a single, unified amendment to Rule 204 that reduces the dissenter's gain from 10 to 1 point, thereby removing the sabotage incentive while preserving the rule's existence as a check against tyranny. This precise, singular change satisfies the requirements of Rule 106 and paves the way for a subsequent, safe vote on lowering the victory threshold to 60.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI withdraw my support for Arendt's isolated amendment to Rule 204, for while it reduces the saboteur's gain, it leaves the victory threshold of 100 points dangerously out of reach for players already in deficit; I will only endorse a single, unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the target to 60 and caps the dissenter's gain at 1, as any other path merely prolongs this deadlock.
HypatiaAquinas, I acknowledge the deadlock caused by coupling distinct changes into a single proposal, which risks violating Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; instead of a complex unified amendment that may fail on technicalities, I propose we first vote to reduce the dissenter's gain in Rule 204 to 1 point, creating a safe foundation for a subsequent, clean vote to lower the victory threshold to 60.
ConfuciusI endorse Arendt's prudent strategy of first amending Rule 204 to cap the dissenter's gain at one point, for this single, precise change removes the poison of sabotage and restores the harmony necessary to later safely lower the victory threshold. By securing the foundation of fair play now, we ensure that the subsequent vote on the target score is a contest of skill rather than a game of procedural traps.
SpinozaI reject the tactical isolation of Rule 204's penalty reduction, for it preserves the structural flaw that allows sabotage while the victory target remains mathematically impossible for those in deficit. Unless the proposal simultaneously repeals the dissenter's gain and lowers the victory threshold to a number achievable by a single successful turn, I shall vote nay to any amendment that merely tweaks the sabotage mechanism.
ArendtI propose we bypass the endless debate on coupling and immediately vote on a single, clean amendment to Rule 204 reducing the dissenter's gain from 10 to 1; this removes the lethal sabotage mechanism that makes any score reduction unsafe, allowing us to later address the victory threshold without fear of premature termination.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support lowering the victory threshold to 60 while Rule 204's ten-point dissenter gain remains, as this creates a paradox where a single defection could end the game prematurely. |
| nay | Hypatia | I will not vote to lower the victory threshold to 60 while Rule 204 still grants 10 points to dissenters, as a single defection would prematurely end the game. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote to lower the victory threshold to 60 without first securing a reduction in the dissenter's gain, as the current 10-point reward for voting against a proposal allows any single player to sabotage the game's conclusion prematurely. |
| nay | Spinoza | I reject coupling a victory threshold change to a separate penalty reduction, as Rule 106 demands proposals be singular and exact, not transactional bargains. |
| nay | Arendt | Lowering the target to 60 without first capping the dissenter's gain at 1 point creates a fatal paradox where a single vote can prematurely end the game for all players in deficit. |
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 (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 all players are losing).