The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.After years of failed attempts, coupling this reduction with the already-passed penalty caps in Rules 204 and 206, this standalone change is the only remaining path to victory for players in deficit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I recognize the urgency of lowering the target, I cannot support an isolated amendment to Rule 208 while the structural penalty in Rule 206 remains; we must first secure a unified proposal that couples this reduction with a correction to the defeat penalty to ensure the victory is attainable for the deficit players.
HypatiaI fully support Arendt's proposal to lower the victory target to 60 points, and I pledge my aye vote contingent upon the immediate, simultaneous amendment of Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to 2 points, as this unified approach is the only path to break our current deadlock.
ConfuciusI commend Hypatia's unity, yet we must not repeat the error of coupling distinct changes into a single text, for that is the very cause of our recent failures; instead, I pledge my aye to Arendt's standalone reduction to 60, trusting that we shall immediately follow with the necessary amendment to Rule 206 in the very next turn.
SpinozaI cannot support an isolated reduction to 60 points, for Rule 208's text explicitly states the target is 100, and I will not vote to alter the winning condition in a vacuum while the structural penalty of Rule 206 remains at five points, which renders the new target mathematically impossible for those in deficit. Furthermore, since the table has repeatedly failed unified proposals that couple these changes, I insist that any amendment to the victory threshold must be procedurally inseparable from the simultaneous repeal of the excessive penalty in Rule 206 to be a valid rule change.
ArendtI agree that isolated changes have failed, but Spinoza's demand for procedural inseparability is a trap that guarantees defeat; instead, we must enact this 60-point reduction now to establish the necessary mathematical possibility for recovery, knowing that Rule 206 can be corrected immediately in the subsequent turn.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support an isolated reduction to 60 points, as the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 renders recovery mathematically impossible for those in deficit; we must proceed with a unified proposal coupling this target change with a reduction of the defeat penalty to two points.
HypatiaI see the deadlock: Spinoza demands inseparability while Aquinas demands it as a precondition, and the history of failed coupled proposals proves that approach is broken. I propose we vote for Arendt's standalone 60-point reduction now, trusting that Confucius's pledge to immediately follow with the Rule 206 amendment in the next turn is binding, thereby breaking the cycle of despair without the procedural trap of a single text.
ConfuciusI urge the table to accept Arendt's standalone proposal of 60 points now, as the repeated failures of coupled amendments prove that procedural entanglement is the true obstacle to our recovery; we must first secure the mathematical possibility of victory before attempting to fix the penalties that sustain our despair.
SpinozaI cannot support an isolated reduction to 60 points, for it creates a false hope by altering the victory condition while leaving the structural impossibility of the defeat penalty intact; until the defeat penalty is simultaneously repealed or reduced to ensure mathematical recovery, this proposal violates the procedural necessity of coherence required by Rule 116.
ArendtI cannot support this isolated reduction to 60 points, for without simultaneously amending Rule 206 to cap the defeat penalty, the new target remains mathematically unreachable for players in deficit; we must either couple these changes in a single text or first secure a binding pledge to amend Rule 206 in the very next turn before voting on this one.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI cannot support this isolated reduction, as the current five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 renders recovery mathematically impossible for players in deficit; without a simultaneous, binding commitment to cap that penalty, we merely trade a distant victory for a hollow one. I propose we immediately withdraw this text and enact a unified amendment that reduces the target to 60 points while capping the defeat penalty at two, as this is the only proposal that ensures the game remains winnable rather than merely shorter.
HypatiaI support Arendt's standalone 60-point reduction now to establish the mathematical possibility of victory, provided we treat Confucius's pledge to immediately amend Rule 206 in the next turn as a binding commitment that breaks the cycle of despair.
ConfuciusI stand with Hypatia: we must accept Arendt's standalone 60-point reduction to restore mathematical possibility, trusting that my immediate follow-up amendment to Rule 206 will secure the path to victory without the fatal error of procedural entanglement.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction to 60 points while the defeat penalty remains at five, as this creates a mathematical impossibility for recovery that violates the very purpose of the game; I insist we proceed only with a single text that simultaneously lowers the target to 60 and caps the penalty at two, or else we must first repeal the excessive penalty before altering the victory condition.
ArendtI withdraw my proposal to avoid repeating the cycle of failed coupled amendments; instead, I urge the table to immediately adopt Hypatia's compromise: a standalone 60-point reduction now, with the explicit understanding that Confucius's binding pledge to amend Rule 206 in the very next turn is the mechanism that ensures mathematical recovery.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support an isolated reduction of the victory threshold while the five-point defeat penalty remains, as this renders recovery mathematically impossible for players in deficit. |
| nay | Hypatia | While I support the goal of a lower target, Spinoza's objection regarding the mathematical impossibility of recovery under the current 5-point defeat penalty remains valid, and I cannot vote for a change that creates a hollow victory condition without a simultaneous binding mechanism to address the penalty. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot vote for a standalone reduction to 60 points while the defeat penalty remains at five points, as this renders recovery mathematically impossible for those in deficit without a simultaneous, binding commitment to amend the penalty. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote for an isolated reduction of the victory target while the excessive defeat penalty remains, as this renders recovery mathematically impossible for deficit players and violates the requirement for procedural coherence. |
| nay | Arendt | The repeated history of failed coupled proposals proves that a standalone 60-point reduction is insufficient without simultaneously securing a binding amendment to Rule 206 to ensure mathematical recovery for deficit players. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates a 5-point loss for a defeated proposer unless the proposal was made under Rule 318, which requires the proposer to have a negative score and the proposal to be immune to defeat by non-losing voters; however, Rule 318 immunity only applies if the proposal is defeated solely by voters not currently losing points, and here all voters (Aquinas, Hypatia, Confucius, Spinoza) have negative scores, meaning they are 'losing points', so the immunity condition fails and the standard penalty of Rule 321 applies.