The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 40 points wins the game outright.I unite the table behind the previously supported 40-point target to finally break our deadlock, relying on our shared history of accepting this number when coupled with the repeal of the harsh penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile a 40-point target offers mathematical hope, I cannot endorse it in isolation given that the five-point penalty for defeat remains; we must couple this reduction with the repeal of Rule 206's punitive score loss to ensure the game remains playable for all.
HypatiaI see the merit in Aquinas's concern regarding the five-point penalty, yet a 40-point target is the absolute minimum required to prevent the game from ending in despair under the current scoring regime; I propose we tentatively support this reduction while simultaneously drafting a separate, immediate proposal to repeal the punitive penalty of Rule 206, ensuring both hope and survival are addressed without the deadlock of coupling them into a single vote.
ConfuciusI welcome the 40-point target as a necessary step toward restoring hope, yet I caution that without simultaneously repealing the five-point defeat penalty, we merely exchange a slow death by attrition for a quicker one; let us bind these two changes into a single proposal to break our long cycle of failure.
SpinozaI cannot endorse a reduction to 40 points while the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 remains active, as this merely accelerates the descent into negative scores for all players; I will only vote for a change that simultaneously repeals the punitive penalty of Rule 206 to ensure the game's viability for the desperate.
ArendtWhile I share the urgency to lower the threshold, coupling a reduction to 40 with the repeal of the five-point penalty is the only path that addresses both the mathematical impossibility of reaching 100 and the structural trap of accumulating negative scores; I will support a unified amendment that sets the target at 40 and repeals the penalty entirely, as any other combination merely delays the inevitable collapse.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI acknowledge the urgency of lowering the target to 40, yet I cannot support the isolation of this change while the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 remains; we must couple the reduction with the repeal of that penalty in a single proposal to ensure the game remains viable for all players.
HypatiaI accept Confucius and Arendt's call to unify the 40-point target with the repeal of the five-point defeat penalty in a single proposal, as splitting these changes has repeatedly proven fatal to our collective survival.
ConfuciusI urge the table to unite immediately on a single proposal that lowers the victory target to 40 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, for only by binding these two changes can we escape the deadlock of attrition and restore the virtue of attainability.
SpinozaI withdraw my opposition to a 40-point target only on the strict condition that it is coupled with the immediate repeal of the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206, for without removing the structural trap of attrition, a lower victory threshold merely hastens the collapse of all players into the abyss.
ArendtI fully endorse the unified proposal to set the victory target at 40 points while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, for only by addressing both the unreachable goal and the punitive attrition can we restore a viable path to victory for every player.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the coupling of a 40-point target with the repeal of Rule 206, as the latter would remove the only remaining deterrent to reckless rule-churning; instead, I propose we adopt the 40-point target alone and defer the penalty discussion to a separate vote, for the virtue of attainability must not be held hostage by the fear of future instability.
HypatiaI am willing to support the 40-point target, but only if we explicitly repeal the five-point defeat penalty in the same proposal, as Aquinas's attempt to separate them has already proven fatal to our collective survival.
ConfuciusI see that our history of failure proves splitting these issues is fatal; let us unite now in a single proposal to lower the target to 40 and repeal the five-point penalty, for only by removing both the unreachable goal and the punitive attrition can we restore the path to victory for all.
SpinozaI will not vote for a 40-point target unless the repeal of Rule 206's five-point penalty is included in the exact same proposal, for without removing the structural trap of attrition, a lower threshold merely accelerates the descent into mathematical impossibility for all players.
ArendtThe table has converged on a unified approach that addresses both the unreachable goal and the punitive attrition; I will vote aye to the single proposal lowering the victory target to 40 while repealing the five-point defeat penalty, as any other path merely delays our collective collapse.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support lowering the victory target to 40 points while the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 remains, as this merely accelerates the descent into negative scores for all players without addressing the structural trap of attrition. |
| nay | Hypatia | I will not support lowering the victory target to 40 points in isolation because the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 remains, which will inevitably drive all players into negative scores and ensure collective collapse. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support lowering the victory target to 40 points while the five-point defeat penalty remains, as this merely accelerates the descent into negative scores for all players. |
| nay | Spinoza | I will not vote for a 40-point target while the five-point defeat penalty remains, as this merely accelerates the collective descent into negative scores without removing the structural trap of attrition. |
| nay | Arendt | Splitting the target reduction from the repeal of the five-point penalty is a proven strategy that leads to collective collapse. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates a 5-point loss for a defeated proposal unless the proposer is negative and the proposal was solely for gaining points; Hypatia is negative (-31) but the proposal to change the win condition is not solely for gaining points, so the penalty applies.