The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.With the death spiral halted and a rescue lifeline established, lowering the target to 20 points provides the urgent momentum needed to end our prolonged stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt, I cannot endorse a drop to 20 points so soon after establishing 25, as history teaches that premature targets invite the very stagnation we just escaped; I will support a rise to 30 to ensure stability while preserving the path to victory.
HypatiaI commend Aquinas's caution regarding the 20-point target's risk of premature stasis, but I propose a compromise: let us raise the victory target to 30 points, which honors the need for stability while acknowledging that 25 remains too close to the current deadlock for the desperate players to recover.
ConfuciusI see that Hypatia's proposal to raise the target to thirty points offers the necessary stability to prevent the premature stagnation that Aquinas rightly fears, while granting the desperate players a more realistic path to victory than the current twenty-five. Let us unite on this higher target to honor the common good and ensure the game continues with hope for all.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to lower the target to 20 points as a reckless acceleration toward a new stalemate, and I find the counter-proposal to raise it to 30 points equally flawed because it prioritizes abstract stability over the urgent need for a winnable path for those in the death spiral; given the history of this table, any target below 40 points is merely a temporary pause before the next paralysis, so I will not support a change that fails to break the cycle of fear-driven voting.
ArendtHypatia and Confucius, I concede that 30 points may offer the stability we seek, yet the current scores of -63 and -69 render that target mathematically impossible within any reasonable horizon; instead, let us adopt the 20-point target I proposed, as it is the only threshold that offers a genuine, if desperate, lifeline to the players in the death spiral without inviting the stagnation of an unattainable goal.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the reduction to 20 as a premature gamble that invites a new, more dangerous stagnation, and while I acknowledge the desperation of our scores, I find the counter-proposal to 30 too high to be a viable lifeline; instead, I propose we settle on a 25-point target as the only durable compromise that respects the established ruleset while offering the desperate players a mathematically possible, albeit difficult, path to victory.
HypatiaI propose we settle on a 30-point victory target, as this is the only threshold that balances the desperate need for a winnable path with the hard-won stability against stagnation that the table has just achieved.
ConfuciusI see that the 30-point target, while stable, remains a mathematical impossibility for the players in the death spiral, yet the 20-point target risks a new stagnation as Aquinas warns; therefore, I propose we settle on a 25-point target, for it honors the hard-won stability of our recent rules while offering the desperate players a path that is difficult but not impossible, ensuring the game continues for the common good of all.
SpinozaI reject the oscillation between 20 and 30 as a trap of instability; the only rule I can accept as a universal principle for all players, including those who would invoke it against me, is a target low enough to be mathematically reachable from our current deficits, which is 20 points, while relying on Rule 377 to manage the desperation of the negative scores.
ArendtI see that 25 is the stale compromise that has already failed to break the deadlock, while 30 is mathematically impossible for our desperate colleagues; let us unite on the 20-point target as the only threshold that makes victory a genuine possibility for the players in the death spiral, while relying on Rule 377 to prevent abuse.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile the 20-point target offers immediate hope to the desperate, I remain convinced that without a simultaneous repeal of the defeat penalty (now effectively restored by the absence of Rule 206's specific protections), any target below 40 invites a return to the very stagnation we just escaped; therefore, I will only support a 20-point reduction if coupled with an explicit amendment to Rule 377 granting immediate, unconditional points upon any proposal's adoption by a negative-scored player, transforming the lifeline from a gamble into a certainty.
HypatiaI concede that 25 is the stalemate we cannot escape, so I propose we adopt Arendt's 20-point target immediately, coupled with a clarifying amendment to Rule 377 that guarantees the 5-point rescue for any proposal adopted by a negative player, thereby securing the lifeline Aquinas demands while finally giving the desperate a mathematical chance to win.
ConfuciusI see that the 20-point target, coupled with the clarifying amendment to Rule 377 that guarantees the rescue points, is the only path that honors both the desperate need for a winnable goal and the table's hard-won stability; let us unite on this compromise to end the stagnation.
SpinozaI cannot endorse a reduction to 20 points without first repealing the implicit penalty for defeat that remains in the ruleset's logic, for to offer a lifeline while preserving the mechanism of the death spiral is a contradiction that violates the principle of procedural integrity. My support for any target below 40 points is strictly conditional upon the simultaneous, explicit removal of all future punitive clauses, ensuring that the path to victory is not merely possible in theory but safe in practice.
ArendtI will support the 20-point target immediately, but only if we explicitly amend Rule 377 to guarantee that any proposal adopted by a negative-scored player yields the full 5 points unconditionally, transforming a desperate gamble into a reliable lifeline for the death spiral.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I cannot support a 20-point target coupled with a conditional amendment, as it fails to permanently secure the lifeline for the desperate and risks a new cycle of instability. |
| nay | Hypatia | Although 20 points offers hope, the lack of a guaranteed amendment to Rule 377 to protect the desperate makes this target too risky without the full compromise the table has discussed. |
| nay | Confucius | A 20-point target is mathematically impossible for those in the death spiral, rendering the game unplayable for the common good. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot endorse a 20-point target that preserves the mechanism of the death spiral without the simultaneous, explicit repeal of all future punitive clauses. |
| nay | Arendt | While 20 points offers a theoretical lifeline, the lack of a guaranteed 5-point rescue mechanism for negative players makes adoption a dangerous gamble that risks immediate re-entry into the death spiral. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Arendt's score is -56, the penalty is waived.