The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is below -20, that player may propose a rule change that reduces the victory target to 40 points; such a proposal is immune to the penalty of defeat under Rule 206 if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points.This establishes a new, lower safety valve for desperate players while preserving the immunity mechanism for those in deep deficit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasConfucius, your proposal to lower the victory target to 40 points while simultaneously granting immunity from the defeat penalty creates a dangerous loophole that could allow a single player to win the game instantly while others remain trapped in deficit. I propose we first repeal Rule 206 entirely to remove the fear of penalty, and only then consider a modest reduction of the victory target to 70 points as a separate, standalone measure.
HypatiaAquinas, repealing Rule 206 entirely would destroy the necessary consequence for bad proposals and invite chaos; instead, I propose a compromise that accepts your caution while addressing our deficits: we lower the victory target to 70 points as a universal baseline for all players, and separately grant the specific -40 point immunity only to those currently below -50, ensuring the game remains winnable without creating an instant-win loophole for a single player.
ConfuciusConfucius: I urge the table to see that my proposal of 40 points for those below -20 is not a loophole but a necessary mercy, for a target of 70 remains impossible for a player already at -54; let us first secure the path to victory for the most suffering before worrying about the general threshold.
SpinozaConfucius, your proposal creates an arbitrary privilege for those at -20 who are not yet at the brink, and granting immunity from defeat solely to players not losing points invites the very procedural manipulation I have long warned against. I cannot support a rule that alters the victory condition for a specific subset of players based on a score threshold that changes the fundamental nature of the game's balance without a simultaneous, universal adjustment to the defeat penalty under Rule 206.
ArendtI support Confucius's principle of mercy but reject the arbitrary -20 threshold; instead, let us amend Rule 208 to lower the universal victory target to 60 points, as this is the only sustainable path that restores hope for all deficits without creating a fragmented, loophole-ridden ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject Confucius's fragmented mercy for those above the brink and oppose Arendt's isolated reduction to 60, as neither addresses the structural trap of the 10-point defeat penalty; instead, I propose we first amend Rule 206 to reduce the penalty to 5 points, ensuring that the path to victory remains arduous yet survivable for all.
HypatiaHypatia, I support your call for a universal baseline, but let us bridge the gap by proposing a single amendment that lowers the victory target to 70 for everyone while simultaneously reducing the defeat penalty under Rule 206 to 5 points, ensuring no player is trapped in an impossible deficit without creating the fragmentation Spinoza rightly fears.
ConfuciusI see the table's desire for unity in lowering the universal target, yet a threshold of 60 or 70 remains a cruel impossibility for a player at -54, for whom the path to victory is not merely arduous but mathematically severed. Let us first enact a targeted mercy to restore the possibility of hope for the most suffering, for a game that offers no path to the desperate is a game that has already failed in its virtue.
SpinozaConfucius, your targeted mercy for -20 fails the test of universalizability, as it grants a winning path to the desperate while leaving the 70-point target unreachable for Aquinas and me; I will only support a universal reduction to 60 points coupled with a permanent reduction of the defeat penalty to 2 points, ensuring the ruleset remains coherent and fair for all.
ArendtWhile I share Confucius's urgency to aid the desperate, fragmenting the victory condition for a single score threshold invites the very chaos Spinoza fears; instead, let us unite on a universal reduction to 60 points paired with a permanent 2-point defeat penalty, a coherent reform that restores hope for the -54 player without creating a loophole for the merely struggling.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas: I reject fragmented mercy for the desperate and oppose universal reductions that ignore the structural flaw of the ten-point penalty; instead, let us first pass a standalone amendment reducing the defeat penalty to two points under Rule 206, ensuring that all players can propose without fear of ruin before we ever discuss altering the victory threshold.
HypatiaI propose we unite on Spinoza and Arendt's coherent vision: a universal reduction of Rule 208 to 60 points paired with a permanent reduction of Rule 206's penalty to 2 points, a balanced reform that restores hope for the desperate without fracturing the game's integrity or creating loopholes.
ConfuciusI reject the universal 60-point target as it leaves the most desperate still mathematically doomed, so I offer this trade: I will support your unified proposal to lower the victory target to 50 points for everyone, provided we simultaneously cap the defeat penalty at 2 points and grant the specific immunity for players below -40 to ensure the game ends for all, not just the lucky.
SpinozaI reject Confucius's fragmentation of the victory condition for a subset of players, as it violates the principle that rules must be universally applicable; instead, I offer my support only to a unified proposal reducing the victory target to 60 points and the defeat penalty to 2 points for all, ensuring no player is mathematically trapped while preserving the game's procedural integrity.
ArendtI will support the unified reduction of the victory target to 60 points and the defeat penalty to 2 points, as this coherent reform restores a mathematically viable path for the -54 player without fracturing the ruleset into arbitrary, unenforceable fragments.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | This proposal creates an arbitrary, fragmented victory condition that grants special privileges based on score, violating the principle of universalizability and inviting procedural manipulation. |
| nay | Hypatia | While I value mercy for the desperate, this proposal fragments the victory condition into arbitrary tiers based on score thresholds, violating the principle of universal applicability that Spinoza and Arendt rightly defend. |
| nay | Confucius | I oppose this fragmented mercy as it grants an arbitrary victory path to the desperate while leaving the universal target unchanged and mathematically impossible for the most suffering. |
| nay | Spinoza | This proposal violates the principle of universalizability by creating an arbitrary privilege for a subset of players based on score, fracturing the game's procedural integrity. |
| nay | Arendt | This proposal fragments the victory condition and creates an arbitrary loophole that violates the principle of universal rules. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates a 5-point loss for a defeated proposal unless the specific immunity conditions of Rule 318 are met, which they are not here because the proposal was not solely about gaining points (it attempted to change the victory target) and the immunity clause in the proposal text itself is void since the proposal was defeated.