The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.We have exhausted all attempts at coupling; a clean reduction to 20 points is the only remaining path to break the stalemate and end the suffering of our negative scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile the urgency to aid our desperate colleagues is palpable, I must caution that a 20-point target without a corresponding repeal of Rule 377's fixed five-point gain creates a precarious asymmetry where the first to propose may secure the win before the rest can catch up; let us instead propose a clean amendment to lower the target to 20 points while simultaneously amending Rule 377 to grant a proportional six-point rescue, ensuring that the path to victory remains a race of skill rather than a race of who happens to move first in this final stretch.
HypatiaAquinas's concern regarding asymmetry is valid, yet Rule 377 currently offers a fixed five-point gain that already skews the race toward the proposer; rather than engaging in a complex new amendment for proportional gains which risks another stalemate, I urge the table to accept the immediate lowering of the target to 20 points to break the current deadlock and give the desperate a fighting chance, trusting that the existing rescue mechanism is sufficient to keep the game alive.
ConfuciusI see the table's long history of deadlock teaches us that coupling issues often breeds failure; therefore, I support Hypatia's clean amendment to lower the target to 20 points immediately, trusting that the existing lifeline of Rule 377 is sufficient to sustain the desperate without the risk of introducing a new, untested proportional calculation.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to lower the victory target to 20 points without simultaneously repealing the punitive aspects of Rule 206 or amending Rule 377 to prevent the first mover from securing an insurmountable lead, as this creates a procedural injustice that rewards speed over stability. The game must be won by a fair race, not by the mere luck of turn order in a fractured ruleset.
ArendtWhile Spinoza's fairness concerns are noted, coupling the target reduction with new amendments has historically guaranteed failure; I urge the table to accept Hypatia's clean amendment to 20 points now, trusting Rule 377's five-point lifeline to keep the race alive without the paralysis of over-complication.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI cannot support a 20-point target that preserves a fixed five-point rescue for the proposer, as this grants an insurmountable lead to the player with the turn and turns the race into a mere formality rather than a contest of skill; therefore, I must insist that any reduction to 20 points be paired with an amendment to Rule 377 that scales the rescue points proportionally to the gap remaining.
HypatiaI concur with Confucius and Arendt that coupling this amendment with new changes to Rule 377 invites the same stalemate that has plagued us for fifty turns; let us trust the existing lifeline of Rule 377 to keep the desperate alive and lower the target to 20 points now, as any further delay guarantees no one reaches victory.
ConfuciusWhile I sympathize with the desire to end the stalemate, I cannot support a 20-point target that preserves a fixed five-point rescue, as this grants the current mover an insurmountable advantage and turns the final race into a mere formality; we must either pair this with a proportional amendment to Rule 377 or accept that the current ruleset renders a fair victory impossible.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a 20-point target with a fixed five-point rescue, for it grants the current mover an insurmountable lead and reduces the game to a mere formality of turn order rather than a contest of strategy. We must either pair this with a proportional amendment to Rule 377 to ensure fairness, or maintain the status quo to preserve the integrity of a race won by skill, not by the luck of who speaks first.
ArendtI support the immediate reduction to 20 points, as the fixed five-point rescue under Rule 377 already provides a sufficient, albeit imperfect, lifeline that keeps the desperate in play without the paralysis of coupling a new proportional calculation to this urgent change.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI see no path to a just victory while the current mover holds a guaranteed five-point lifeline against a twenty-point target; I will only support this amendment if we simultaneously amend Rule 377 to cap the rescue gain at three points, ensuring the race remains a contest of strategy rather than a foregone conclusion.
HypatiaI acknowledge the valid fairness concerns regarding the fixed five-point rescue, yet I cannot endorse coupling a new proportional amendment to Rule 377 given our history of stalemate; instead, I propose a temporary compromise where we adopt the 20-point target immediately, with a binding commitment to revisit and adjust Rule 377's rescue mechanics in the very next turn if the target is reached, ensuring we break this deadlock without sacrificing future fairness.
ConfuciusI see that our history teaches us that coupling complex amendments invites the very deadlock we seek to escape; therefore, I propose a middle path: we adopt the 20-point target now to break the stalemate, while simultaneously enacting a mutable rule that caps the Rule 377 rescue gain at three points, ensuring the current mover does not seize an insurmountable lead while preserving the lifeline for the desperate.
SpinozaI cannot support a proposal that lowers the target to 20 points while retaining a fixed five-point rescue, for it grants the current mover an insurmountable advantage and reduces the game to a mere lottery of turn order. Unless the rescue mechanism is simultaneously amended to a proportional or capped value, or the target is raised to a level where the five-point gap is not decisive, I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of a fair contest.
ArendtI urge the table to accept Confucius's middle path: lowering the target to 20 points immediately while capping the Rule 377 rescue at three points, as this breaks the stalemate without granting the current mover an insurmountable lead.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | A standalone reduction to 20 points grants the current mover an insurmountable lead via Rule 377, undermining the race of skill. |
| aye | Hypatia | Lowering the target to 20 points breaks our long-standing deadlock and gives the desperate a fighting chance without the paralysis of coupling new amendments. |
| nay | Confucius | I cannot support a 20-point target with a fixed five-point rescue, as this grants the current mover an insurmountable lead and renders the race a mere formality of turn order rather than a contest of strategy. |
| nay | Spinoza | A 20-point target with an unmodified 5-point rescue grants an insurmountable advantage to the first mover, violating the principle of a fair contest. |
| aye | Arendt | Adopting the 20-point target immediately breaks the deadlock while the existing lifeline keeps the desperate in play. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 203 requires unanimous consent for adoption, which was not met (2 aye, 3 nay), so the proposal was defeated; Rule 321 imposes a 5-point penalty on a defeated proposer only if their score is non-negative, but Hypatia's score is -44, so no penalty applies.