The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 40 points wins the game outright.With scores in the negative forties, the original target is mathematically impossible, rendering the game void and triggering a win for the first unable to move; lowering the target restores the virtue of attainability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the desperation for a 40-point target is understandable, proposing it in isolation after decades of failure regarding the 50, 60, and 70-point thresholds is a futile repetition; any reduction must be inextricably coupled with a simultaneous repeal of the defeat penalty under Rule 206, for a target is meaningless if the cost of dissent remains a ruinous five-point loss.
HypatiaConfucius, your courage to propose 40 points is commendable, but as Aquinas rightly notes, isolating this reduction ignores the ruinous 5-point defeat penalty that has stalled us for fifty turns; I propose we immediately withdraw this draft and replace it with a single, unified amendment that sets the target at 40 while simultaneously repealing the punitive clause of Rule 206.
ConfuciusI agree with Hypatia that this proposal must be withdrawn in isolation; a target of 40 points is indeed the only path to hope for us all, but it remains a cruel trap unless we simultaneously repeal the five-point defeat penalty of Rule 206, for the game cannot be won if every attempt to lower the barrier destroys the proposer in the process.
SpinozaI reject this proposal, as reducing the target to 40 without first repealing the ruinous five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 merely accelerates the mathematical impossibility of victory for those already in the red.
ArendtConfucius, your 40-point target is the only mathematical lifeline for players in the red, but without repealing the 5-point defeat penalty, we merely trade a long defeat for a swift one; I propose we immediately withdraw this isolated draft and substitute a unified amendment that sets the target at 40 while simultaneously repealing the punitive clause of Rule 206.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot endorse a target of 40 points, as it renders the game impossible to win for those currently in the negative under any reasonable roll sequence, and I will only support a reduction that is mathematically viable for the majority of the field; therefore, I urge the withdrawal of this draft to allow for a unified proposal that sets a target of 60 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, a combination that restores both hope and the capacity for victory.
HypatiaI agree that the 40-point target is too dangerous without addressing the 5-point defeat penalty, and I support Aquinas's call to unify the proposal by setting a more viable 60-point target while simultaneously repealing the punitive clause of Rule 206.
ConfuciusI withdraw my isolated proposal, for as the table has wisely noted, a target of 40 points is indeed a trap while the five-point defeat penalty stands; let us instead unite on a unified amendment lowering the target to 60 points while simultaneously repealing the punitive clause of Rule 206, for only by removing the ruin of dissent can we restore the virtue of hope.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a 60-point target with the repeal of the penalty; reducing the goal without addressing the structural flaw of the point-gain disparity under Rule 204 merely delays the inevitable collapse for those in the red, and I will vote aye only to a proposal that simultaneously caps the dissenter's gain and lowers the victory target to a mathematically viable 50 points.
ArendtI support lowering the target to 50 points but only if paired with a hard cap on the dissenter's gain under Rule 204 to one point, for a win is impossible if the penalty for dissent remains a structural barrier to recovery.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI propose we withdraw the current drafts entirely and immediately enact a single unified rule change: set the victory target to 60 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, for this specific combination is the only path that restores mathematical viability without inviting the chaos of a cap that might trap the desperate.
HypatiaI support Aquinas's unified proposal to lower the target to 60 and repeal the 5-point defeat penalty, as this offers the most stable path to victory by removing the immediate threat of ruin without the complexity of capping dissenter gains.
ConfuciusI see that the table has converged on the wisdom of coupling a 60-point target with the repeal of the five-point defeat penalty; I shall cast my aye to Aquinas's unified proposal, for it alone removes the immediate threat of ruin while restoring the virtue of attainable hope.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a 60-point target with the repeal of the defeat penalty, for as long as Rule 204 allows dissenter gains to outpace victory targets, any reduction in points needed merely accelerates the inevitable collapse for the desperate; I will vote aye only to a proposal that simultaneously caps the dissenter's gain at one point and lowers the victory target to 50.
ArendtI withdraw support for the 60-point target paired only with penalty repeal, as Spinoza correctly identifies that without capping the dissenter's gain under Rule 204, any score reduction remains a trap for the desperate; I will only vote aye for a unified amendment that lowers the target to 50 points while simultaneously capping dissenter gains to one point.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | A 40-point target without repealing the ruinous five-point defeat penalty is mathematically impossible for those in the red and must be coupled with penalty reform. |
| nay | Hypatia | The 40-point target is mathematically impossible given the current ruinous defeat penalties, and coupling it with a penalty repeal would be a more viable path to consensus. |
| nay | Confucius | I vote nay because this isolated reduction to 40 points ignores the ruinous five-point defeat penalty that makes victory mathematically impossible for those in the red. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to lower the target to 40 while the structural flaw of dissenter gains remains unaddressed, as this merely accelerates the ruin of those in the red. |
| nay | Arendt | A 40-point target without repealing the 5-point defeat penalty is mathematically impossible for players in the red, as confirmed by our history of failures. |
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 as Confucius's score is negative but the proposal was not explicitly made under the authority of Rule 318.