The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 15 points wins the game outright.Lowering the victory target to 15 points provides the most immediate and equitable path for all five desperate players to escape the negative spiral.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasThe table's history of stasis at twenty points proves that a further reduction to fifteen is the only arithmetic solution capable of breaking the current deadlock and offering a genuine chance of victory to those in the red.
HypatiaWhile I appreciate the urgency to break the stasis, lowering the target to 15 is premature; we must first let the current 20-point rule stabilize our positions before risking a race that could crown a winner with a single lucky roll, so I will support this proposal only if paired with a temporary cap on point gains per turn to ensure fairness.
ConfuciusWhile I commend the urgency to lift the desperate from their despair, lowering the target to fifteen before the current twenty-point stabilization has taken root risks crowning a victor by mere fortune rather than the reasoned play we seek. I urge we hold firm at twenty for now, allowing the new rules to settle before risking a race where a single die roll decides the fate of the table.
SpinozaI cannot accept a reduction to fifteen points because it transforms the game from a contest of rule-making into a lottery where a single die roll determines the victor, violating the principle that victory should reflect strategic agency. Furthermore, with the current rules allowing a guaranteed five-point gain for the desperate, lowering the target so drastically creates an unstable environment where the first player to draw a six or two wins immediately, rendering all other play irrelevant. I urge we hold the line at twenty to allow the current stabilization to take effect before risking a race decided by chance.
ArendtI urge the table to recognize that at -57, I am mathematically barred from ever reaching 20 points, rendering the current target a guaranteed stalemate; lowering the threshold to 15 is not a gamble for luck, but the only arithmetic path that allows the desperate to compete on the merits of their proposals rather than the randomness of the die.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasArendt, your arithmetic of despair is undeniable, yet Spinoza correctly notes that a fifteen-point target renders the game a lottery where a single six-point roll decides the contest; I will support your proposal only if paired with a temporary amendment to Rule 377 that limits the desperate player's guaranteed gain to two points per turn, thereby restoring strategic agency while breaking the stalemate.
HypatiaI acknowledge Arendt's mathematical necessity but agree with Spinoza and Aquinas that a 15-point target combined with the current 5-point rescue creates a lottery; therefore, I pledge my aye only if we simultaneously amend Rule 377 to cap the desperate player's guaranteed gain at 2 points per turn.
ConfuciusI urge the table to reject this reduction to fifteen, for coupling a lower victory threshold with the existing five-point rescue for the desperate invites the very lottery of chance we must avoid; instead, I propose we first stabilize our current twenty-point target to allow the new rules to settle before considering any further arithmetic adjustments.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction to fifteen points, for the guaranteed five-point lifeline combined with such a low target would inevitably turn the game into a lottery decided by a single die roll rather than strategic agency. I maintain my vote against this proposal unless the table first amends Rule 377 to cap the desperate player's gain, ensuring that victory remains a contest of reason and not merely luck.
ArendtI reject the coupling of a lower threshold with a reduced lifeline, for it dismantles the only safety net we have built; instead, I urge the table to vote aye on the 15-point target alone, as the current 5-point rescue is sufficient to allow a desperate player to win without turning the game into a pure lottery, whereas a 30-point target guarantees my eternal loss.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI oppose coupling this proposal with a reduction of the rescue lifeline, as such a trade undermines the durable institution of hope we recently forged; instead, I urge the table to accept the 15-point target as a standalone arithmetic necessity, for the current 5-point lifeline remains sufficient to preserve strategic agency while breaking the mathematical stalemate.
HypatiaI will vote aye on Arendt's 15-point amendment, but only if the table explicitly adopts a temporary clause capping the desperate player's guaranteed gain to 2 points per turn, a modification that preserves the lifeline's hope while removing the lottery element that Spinoza rightly fears.
ConfuciusI stand with Spinoza and Hypatia: a fifteen-point target coupled with a five-point lifeline reduces our game to a lottery where a single roll decides victory, betraying the principle of reasoned play. I urge the table to hold firm at twenty points to allow our recent stabilizations to take root before risking a contest of chance.
SpinozaI cannot support this reduction to fifteen points, as the combination of the existing five-point lifeline and such a low target inevitably reduces the game to a lottery decided by a single die roll, violating my principle that victory must reflect strategic agency rather than chance; I will only vote for a lower threshold if paired with an immutable cap on the desperate player's guaranteed gain, ensuring the game remains a contest of reason.
ArendtI withdraw this proposal to avoid the deadlock of conditional counter-offers; instead, I will propose a standalone amendment to Rule 377 to cap the desperate lifeline at two points, thereby preserving the 20-point victory target while satisfying Spinoza's demand for strategic agency over chance.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Coupling a fifteen-point target with the existing five-point lifeline reduces victory to a lottery of chance, violating the principle of strategic agency. |
| nay | Hypatia | I support a lower target but refuse to vote for a 15-point threshold that, combined with the current 5-point lifeline, creates a lottery rather than a contest of strategy. |
| nay | Confucius | A fifteen-point target combined with the five-point desperate lifeline reduces the game to a lottery of chance rather than a contest of reasoned play. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot vote to reduce the victory threshold to 15 points while the 5-point lifeline remains unchanged, as this combination inevitably reduces the game to a lottery decided by a single die roll rather than strategic agency. |
| nay | Arendt | I withdraw my support for the 15-point target because it creates a lottery where a single die roll decides the game, and I will instead pursue a standalone amendment to cap the lifeline at two points. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 203 requires unanimous consent for adoption, which was not met (0 aye, 5 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 Arendt's score is -57, so no penalty applies.