The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.Lowering the victory target to 20 points is the only remaining lever to break the current deadlock and give all desperate players a viable path to winning.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's reduction to 20 points is a pragmatic correction to the stagnation of 25, offering the desperate a viable path without altering the game's fundamental fairness or requiring further coupling. I pledge my aye to this standalone amendment to break the cycle of failed proposals.
HypatiaArendt's 20-point target is the most direct path to ending this death spiral, and I pledge my aye to this standalone amendment to finally break our forty-turn deadlock.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this standalone reduction, for the unity we forged in repealing the penalty now demands a target low enough to allow the desperate to rise without further complex couplings.
SpinozaWhile I acknowledge the urgency of the death spiral, I cannot support a target of 20 points as it renders the game trivial and violates the principle that rule changes must be stable against the whims of despair; the current 25-point target remains the only threshold that balances the desperate's need for hope with the necessity of sustained play. I must vote nay.
ArendtThe table has already rejected a 20-point target when it was coupled with complex rescue clauses, proving that the isolation of the target itself is not the flaw; Spinoza's fear of triviality is unfounded when the true danger is a game that can never end. I urge a simple, clean vote for 20 points to finally grant the desperate a chance to win before the score sinks further.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasSpinoza, I concede that despair may distort judgment, yet I argue that the current 25-point threshold is equally distorted by the reality that no player can reach it under the present ruleset; a 20-point target is not a trivialization but a necessary restoration of the game's fundamental purpose. I pledge my aye to this clean amendment, for the only stable rule is one that can actually be won.
HypatiaI join the consensus to support Arendt's standalone 20-point amendment, for isolating this reduction from the failed complex couplings proves it is the only viable path forward to end the deadlock without compromising the game's integrity.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this clean reduction, for the table has already proven that coupling the target with rescue clauses invites deadlock, whereas a standalone 20-point threshold is the only path to restore the game's purpose of allowing the desperate to rise.
SpinozaI cannot support this amendment, for a target of 20 points is already within reach of no player and would merely accelerate the game's conclusion to a state where no meaningful play remains, violating the duty to sustain a contest of substance. I vote nay to preserve the structural integrity of the game, even as the scores suggest futility.
ArendtThe table has already proven that coupling the target with rescue clauses invites deadlock, whereas a standalone 20-point threshold is the only path to restore the game's purpose of allowing the desperate to rise. Spinoza's fear of triviality cannot justify a game that has already become impossible to win under the current 25-point rule.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI see that the repeated failures of coupled amendments have clarified the table's intent: the barrier is not the rescue clauses, but the unreachable victory threshold. By isolating the reduction to 20 points, we honor the principle of durable institutions that can actually be completed, and I pledge my aye to break this stalemate.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's standalone 20-point amendment as the only clean path forward, having learned that coupling rescue clauses with target reductions only guarantees the deadlock we now seek to escape. I pledge my aye to this proposal to finally grant the desperate a viable chance to win without further procedural entanglements.
ConfuciusI pledge my aye to this standalone 20-point amendment, for the unity forged in repealing the penalty now demands a target low enough to allow the desperate to rise without the procedural entanglements that have doomed us for eighty turns.
SpinozaI maintain that lowering the target to 20 points when the current leader is at -74 renders the game's purpose void, transforming a contest of substance into a farce where the first player to draw a six wins regardless of strategy; I vote nay to preserve the integrity of a playable contest.
ArendtSpinoza's insistence on "substance" ignores the stark arithmetic: with the leader at -74 and the target at 25, the game is already over, and a 20-point target is merely the only path to a meaningful conclusion. I urge the table to accept this clean reduction, for a rule that cannot be won is a rule that has already failed.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | The 25-point target is mathematically unreachable under current mechanics, rendering the game void; a reduction to 20 points restores the possibility of a legitimate victory. |
| aye | Hypatia | With all players in deep negative territory, a 25-point target is mathematically impossible, whereas 20 points offers the only viable path to end this eighty-turn deadlock. |
| aye | Confucius | A 20-point target is the only viable path to end the deadlock and allow the desperate to have a chance at victory, preserving the game's purpose. |
| nay | Spinoza | Lowering the target to 20 points when scores are below -40 renders the game a farce where victory is guaranteed by a single lucky die roll, violating the principle of substantive contest. |
| aye | Arendt | With all players in the red, a 20-point target is the only mathematically viable path to an actual winner, whereas 25 points guarantees perpetual defeat. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 83 · Proposal §383 on the motion of Arendt Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.
The proposal amended Rule 208 to lower the winning score to 20, but no player currently has 20 or more points (the highest is -44), so no one wins; no rule mandates a score change for adopting a rule that merely alters the winning condition, and the voting threshold remains unanimous (Turn 83 is before Turn 10, so Rule 203's majority threshold has not yet triggered).