The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.With all scores deeply negative, only an immediate, drastic reduction of the victory threshold can mathematically rescue the game from an inevitable stalemate where no one can ever win.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile a ten-point target offers the quickest path to victory, it dangerously exacerbates the current penalty trap where a single defeat eliminates any chance of recovery for players in the negative; I will support a reduction only if coupled with the immediate repeal of the five-point defeat penalty under Rule 206.
HypatiaSpinoza, I share your urgency to end this deadlock, but a 10-point target without addressing the crushing 5-point defeat penalty under Rule 206 is a death sentence for those of us already in the negative; I propose we couple your reduction to 10 points with a simultaneous amendment to cap the defeat penalty at 2 points, creating a viable path forward for all.
ConfuciusI join the consensus that a target of ten points is too precarious given our current scores and the lingering threat of a five-point defeat; we must couple this reduction with the immediate repeal of the punitive penalty under Rule 206 to ensure the game remains a contest of wits rather than a race to ruin.
SpinozaI cannot couple this proposal with the repeal of the defeat penalty, for a rule change must be a single, precise text; coupling distinct changes violates the integrity of the amendment process and sets a precedent for the very procedural chaos that has plagued our game. I stand by the principle that a single, clear reduction to a 10-point target is the only way to break the deadlock, and any player who votes against it while demanding a coupled change votes against the only path to victory currently on the floor.
ArendtI support the urgency of a 10-point target to break this paralysis, but I cannot vote for a proposal that ignores the mathematical impossibility of recovery for players at -58 without simultaneously amending Rule 206 to cap the defeat penalty at two points. Let us propose a unified text that reduces the target to 10 *and* limits the penalty to 2, ensuring the game is actually playable for everyone.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the 10-point target as premature while the five-point penalty remains a death sentence for the desperate; I will only support a unified text that couples this reduction with the immediate repeal of the punitive penalty in Rule 206.
HypatiaI urge Spinoza to recognize that a 10-point target without capping the defeat penalty is a mathematical trap that guarantees the game ends before anyone can win; I propose we amend the text to simultaneously lower the target to 10 *and* limit the defeat penalty to 2 points, creating a viable path forward for all players.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your insistence on a single text has already cost us fifty turns of deadlock; we must couple the 10-point target with the repeal of the five-point penalty under Rule 206, for without this mercy, the game is mathematically impossible for those of us in the negative. I will only vote aye if the proposal explicitly amends Rule 206 to cap the penalty at two points or less, ensuring the game serves the common good of all players rather than just the lucky few.
SpinozaI will not compromise the procedural integrity of a single amendment by demanding a coupling that requires a separate vote, and a ten-point target is the only mathematically viable path to victory for all players given the current scores. I urge the table to accept this precise text; if you fear the penalty, propose its repeal separately in the very next turn, but do not poison this proposal with a requirement for a unified change that has repeatedly failed to pass.
ArendtSpinoza, your procedural purity has already cost us fifty turns of deadlock; I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the victory target at 10 points *and* simultaneously amend Rule 206 to cap the defeat penalty at 2 points within the same proposal, for without this unified mercy, the game remains mathematically impossible for the majority of us.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject this isolated reduction as a death trap for the desperate, for a 10-point target without repealing the five-point defeat penalty renders recovery mathematically impossible for players below zero; I will only support a unified text that simultaneously amends Rule 206 to cap the penalty at two points.
HypatiaI urge Spinoza to drop the demand for procedural purity that has stalled us for fifty turns; we must propose a single, unified text that simultaneously lowers the victory target to 10 points and caps the defeat penalty at 2 points, ensuring the game is winnable for everyone.
ConfuciusI urge Spinoza to abandon the false comfort of procedural purity that has cost us fifty turns of deadlock; a 10-point target is a death trap for those in the negative unless we simultaneously cap the defeat penalty at two points within this very proposal. Let us finally couple these changes into a single text that restores hope to the desperate and ensures the game serves the common good.
SpinozaI cannot couple the victory target with a penalty cap in a single amendment, as Rule 103 demands precision and distinct rule changes must be proposed separately to preserve procedural integrity. If the penalty remains the issue, propose its repeal immediately in the next turn, but do not vote against this proposal based on a demand for a coupled text that violates the rules of amendment.
ArendtI urge Spinoza to abandon the false comfort of procedural purity that has cost us fifty turns; a 10-point target without capping the defeat penalty is a mathematical trap that guarantees the game ends before anyone can win, so we must unite on a single text that lowers the target to 10 *and* limits the penalty to 2 points to ensure the game is actually playable for everyone.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a 10-point target that remains coupled with a five-point defeat penalty, as this combination mathematically guarantees the game's end before the desperate can recover. |
| nay | Hypatia | I cannot support a 10-point target that remains mathematically impossible for players in the negative without simultaneously capping the defeat penalty in this unified proposal. |
| nay | Confucius | A 10-point target without capping the defeat penalty remains a mathematical death trap for players in the negative, violating the common good. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot support a reduction that mathematically locks out negative-scored players without a simultaneous penalty cap, as this violates the principle that rules must be viable for all participants. |
| nay | Arendt | A 10-point target without capping the defeat penalty remains a mathematical death trap for players in the negative. |
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 is not the case here as the proposal was not explicitly intended solely for point gain by a negative-score player in the manner described.