The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 40 points wins the game outright.Adopting this unified 40-point target immediately resolves the deadlock and offers a mathematically achievable victory for all desperate players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI withdraw this proposal, for as the record from Turns 44 through 54 abundantly demonstrates, the table has repeatedly rejected the 30- or 40-point targets in isolation while the five-point defeat penalty remains; we must couple any reduction in the victory target with a simultaneous repeal of that penalty to achieve the unanimity required for adoption.
HypatiaAquinas, I appreciate your withdrawal of the isolated 40-point target, as history confirms that coupling it with the repeal of the five-point penalty under Rule 206 is the only path to consensus; let us immediately propose a unified amendment to lower the target to 30 points while repealing that penalty entirely, giving all desperate players a genuine mathematical chance to win.
ConfuciusI commend Aquinas for recognizing that an isolated reduction to 40 points is futile while the five-point penalty remains, yet I must caution against Hypatia's haste to couple a 30-point target with a penalty repeal, for the desperate need for mercy must not overshadow the necessity of maintaining a viable path to victory for the few who have not yet fallen so far. Let us first secure the repeal of the excessive penalty to restore hope, and then, when the score is truly attainable, consider the target reduction with the wisdom it deserves.
SpinozaI support the repeal of the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 as a necessary restoration of proportionality, but I will not vote for any reduction of the victory target to 30 or 40 points until we can verify that such a change does not render the game unplayable under Rule 114 by allowing scores to remain perpetually negative without a viable path to the target; let us first establish the penalty repeal, then test the target reduction with a more modest figure like 50.
ArendtI urge the table to couple the repeal of the five-point defeat penalty with a target reduction to 50 points, as a 30-point target while scores are deeply negative risks violating Rule 114 by making the game impossible to win, whereas 50 offers a fair, attainable path for all desperate players.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI agree with Arendt that a 50-point target coupled with the repeal of the five-point penalty offers the most durable institution: it restores the mathematical possibility of victory for all desperate players without inviting the instability of an immediately unplayable 30-point race.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas and Arendt's prudent synthesis of a 50-point victory target coupled with the repeal of the five-point defeat penalty, for it secures the mathematical possibility of victory for all players without violating Rule 114, and I pledge my vote to this unified proposal.
ConfuciusI commend the convergence upon a 50-point target coupled with the repeal of the five-point penalty, for this unified measure restores the virtue of attainability without inviting the chaos of an impossible race, and thus secures the common good of the table.
SpinozaI support the coupling of a 50-point victory target with the repeal of the five-point defeat penalty, as this is the only proposal that preserves the game's possibility under Rule 114 while restoring proportionality to the cost of failure.
ArendtI fully endorse the unified proposal to lower the victory target to 50 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, as this synthesis perfectly balances the need for attainable hope with the structural integrity required by Rule 114.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI formally withdraw my isolated draft in favor of the unified proposal to reduce the victory target to 50 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, as this synthesis secures the game's viability under Rule 114 and restores a path to victory for all desperate players.
HypatiaI endorse the unified proposal to lower the victory target to 50 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, as it is the only path that preserves the game's possibility under Rule 114 while securing a genuine mathematical chance for all desperate players to win.
ConfuciusI accept the convergence upon a 50-point target paired with the repeal of the five-point penalty, for this union of mercy and attainability best serves the common good and ensures the game remains playable for all.
SpinozaI support the unified proposal to lower the victory target to 50 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, as this is the only path that satisfies the requirement of proportionality and preserves the game's possibility under Rule 114. However, I insist that the repeal of the penalty be explicit in the text to prevent any future ambiguity regarding the five-point loss under Rule 206.
ArendtSpinoza, your insistence on explicit text is wise; I pledge my aye to the unified proposal lowering the target to 50 points and repealing the five-point penalty under Rule 206, provided the repeal is stated clearly to ensure no ambiguity remains.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a 40-point target while the five-point defeat penalty remains, as this isolated change fails to restore the mathematical possibility of victory for desperate players. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot vote for an isolated 40-point reduction while the punitive five-point defeat penalty remains, as history proves this coupling is necessary for mathematical viability under Rule 114. |
| nay | Confucius | I oppose this isolated reduction to 40 points because the five-point defeat penalty remains, which renders the target mathematically impossible for the most desperate players to reach. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a 40-point target while the five-point defeat penalty remains, as this violates the principle of proportionality and risks rendering the game impossible to play for desperate players. |
| nay | Arendt | I reject the isolated 40-point reduction because the five-point defeat penalty remains, which history shows makes victory mathematically impossible for desperate players. |
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 the proposal was not explicitly made under Rule 318's authority.