The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.This reduction restores mathematical viability to all players while remaining compatible with the recent stabilization of Rule 206.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThe table's history proves that isolated reductions to 60 points have consistently failed because they ignore the crushing 5-point defeat penalty under Rule 206; I cannot vote for this draft until it is coupled with a proportional reduction to that penalty.
HypatiaAquinas, while I agree that the defeat penalty must be addressed, coupling it to this specific proposal has historically caused the very deadlock we face; instead, I propose we vote on this 60-point reduction now to restore hope, followed immediately by my separate proposal to lower Rule 206's penalty to two points, which I believe Spinoza and Confucius will find equally compelling.
ConfuciusI cannot support a reduction to 60 points while the defeat penalty remains at five, for this would merely accelerate the descent of those already in the abyss; we must first secure the reduction of Rule 206 to two points to ensure that hope is not extinguished by the very act of proposing it.
SpinozaI support Aquinas's insistence on coupling the threshold reduction to a penalty reduction, for a game that rewards the desperate with a five-point loss while demanding a fifty-point lead is structurally unjust; without this coupling, the proposal is a trap. However, I will not pledge my vote to Hypatia's sequence of separate proposals, as the history of Turn 46 proves that the first vote will pass only to be sabotaged by the second, leaving the target lowered but the penalty intact to destroy the very players we seek to save.
ArendtI reject the false dichotomy of "coupling" versus "sequence," as both have proven fatal to our progress; instead, I propose we withdraw this isolated draft and immediately table a single, unified amendment that lowers the victory target to 60 points while simultaneously capping the defeat penalty at two points, for only a simultaneous structural correction can break this cycle of despair.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot endorse a sequence where the penalty reduction is deferred, as history proves the table will fracture before the second vote; I will only support the unified amendment that couples the 60-point target with the two-point penalty, provided it is presented as a single, indivisible text.
HypatiaI support Arendt's call for a unified text coupling the 60-point target with the two-point penalty, as history has proven that separating these changes invites sabotage and leaves the most desperate players with no path to recovery.
ConfuciusI join Arendt and Aquinas in supporting the immediate proposal of a single, unified amendment that lowers the victory target to 60 points while capping the defeat penalty at two, for only a simultaneous correction can restore the virtue of attainability without the poison of despair.
SpinozaI stand with Arendt, Aquinas, Hypatia, and Confucius: a unified amendment coupling the 60-point threshold with the two-point penalty is the only text I will vote for, as history proves that sequential or isolated changes invite sabotage and fail to address the structural injustice of the game.
ArendtI will vote aye for Aquinas's proposal only if we immediately amend the text to couple it with the two-point penalty reduction, for a unified change is the sole path that preserves the game's integrity while offering a genuine escape from the abyss.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI withdraw my current proposal to amend Rule 208 in isolation, for as the table has rightly recognized, it remains fatally coupled with the five-point defeat penalty. I hereby propose a single, unified amendment to replace Rule 208 with "The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright" and simultaneously amend Rule 206 to read "the proposer loses 2 points," accepting that only this combined structural correction can restore hope to our game.
HypatiaI fully endorse Aquinas's withdrawal of the isolated draft and his new unified proposal coupling the 60-point victory target with the two-point defeat penalty; this single text resolves the structural injustice that has plagued our last twenty turns and offers the only viable path forward.
ConfuciusI commend the unity of the table in recognizing that the 60-point target and the two-point penalty must stand or fall as one; let us vote on this unified proposal to restore hope and justice to our game.
SpinozaI withdraw my support for the current unified draft as presented, for it fails to explicitly repeal Rule 321 which currently grants a negative-scored player immunity from the penalty we are attempting to impose; until the text explicitly addresses the conflict between the new two-point penalty and the existing immunity for the desperate, the proposal remains structurally ambiguous and thus unjust.
ArendtSpinoza, your objection to Rule 321 is valid and urgent; I propose we amend the text to explicitly repeal Rule 321 within this same unified proposal, ensuring the two-point penalty applies universally without ambiguity.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | The proposal is incomplete because it fails to address the conflicting immunity in Rule 321 and does not include the necessary simultaneous amendment to lower the defeat penalty. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support the unified amendment that couples the 60-point target with the two-point penalty, as Spinoza's valid concern regarding Rule 321 confirms the necessity of addressing the immunity conflict within this single, comprehensive proposal. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal is incomplete as it fails to address Spinoza's valid objection regarding the conflict with Rule 321, which would render the two-point penalty inapplicable to the desperate players it seeks to save. |
| aye | Spinoza | The unified amendment coupling the 60-point threshold with the two-point penalty, while explicitly repealing the conflicting immunity of Rule 321, restores structural justice and offers the only viable path forward for all desperate players. |
| nay | Arendt | The proposal remains structurally flawed because it fails to repeal Rule 321, which would grant the desperate players immunity from the very two-point penalty we seek to impose universally. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 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 as the proposal was not explicitly made under Rule 318's authority.