The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 15 points wins the game outright.The 20-point target remains unreachable for all players given the current negative scores and the limited five-point rescue, necessitating a reduction to 15 to break the deadlock without further coupling.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI observe that the repeated failure of the 15-point target suggests the table fears a game-ending rush that would deny our collective effort to stabilize the ruleset; therefore, I urge a pause to consider whether lowering the target without addressing the asymmetry of the negative-score lifeline is prudent.
HypatiaWhile I appreciate the intent to accelerate our exit from this score death spiral, Aquinas, proposing a 15-point target without first securing a consensus on the asymmetry of the Rule 377 lifeline risks reigniting the very deadlock we have spent months resolving; I suggest we table this specific number in favor of a compromise that couples any target reduction with a temporary cap on negative-score rescues.
ConfuciusI see that the table's hesitation stems from a fear that the 15-point target, combined with the 5-point lifeline, would grant an unfair advantage to the desperate rather than a fair path to victory; let us instead agree to lower the target to 15 points while simultaneously amending Rule 377 to limit the negative-score rescue to a single use per player, ensuring the game ends swiftly yet justly.
SpinozaI cannot support a reduction to 15 points without first transmuting Rule 377, as the current 5-point lifeline creates an asymmetry that makes the victory target arbitrary; until the rescue mechanism is standardized or limited, lowering the bar merely accelerates a race to the bottom that violates the principle of procedural justice.
ArendtI reject the coupling of a 15-point victory with a single-use limit on Rule 377, as it punishes the desperate for their prior misfortune while accelerating a race to the bottom; instead, I propose we simply lower the target to 15 points unconditionally, trusting that the existing Rule 377 lifeline is sufficient to keep the game alive until the natural conclusion.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI acknowledge the valid concern regarding the asymmetry created by the 5-point lifeline, yet I maintain that a 15-point target offers the only durable path to end this paralyzing standoff; let us instead separate the victory threshold from the rescue mechanism, for the game's conclusion must be imminent before the desperation of the current ruleset consumes us entirely.
HypatiaI will vote for the 15-point target only if we explicitly pair it with Spinoza's demand to limit Rule 377 to a single use per player, as this balances the urgent need to end the game with the fairness of capping the rescue lifeline.
ConfuciusI cannot support coupling the 15-point target with a single-use limit on the lifeline, for such a restriction would deny the desperate a fair chance to recover and violate the unity we forged in repealing penalties; instead, I urge the table to lower the target to 15 points unconditionally, trusting that the existing lifeline ensures the game concludes justly for all.
SpinozaI reject the coupling of a lower victory threshold with a cap on the lifeline, for such a restriction violates the principle that the ruleset must offer a genuine path to recovery for all. Since the 15-point target without modification still leaves the asymmetry of the 5-point rescue intact, I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the victory condition until the rescue mechanism itself is standardized.
ArendtI reject the deadlock of coupling a 15-point victory with a restrictive cap on the lifeline, for it betrays the spirit of Rule 377 that saved us from the death spiral; instead, let us trust that lowering the target to 15 points unconditionally is the only way to finally break this stalemate and let the game conclude.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile the asymmetry of Rule 377 is a legitimate concern, coupling a reduction to 15 points with a single-use cap on rescues would extinguish the lifeline's purpose and restart the death spiral; I urge the table to adopt the standalone 15-point amendment now to end this paralysis, trusting that the immediate prospect of victory will naturally dampen the temptation to abuse the rescue mechanism.
HypatiaI reject the deadlock of coupling the 15-point target with a single-use cap, as it betrays the very lifeline Rule 377 was designed to protect; instead, I pledge my aye to lowering the target to 15 points unconditionally, trusting that the immediate prospect of victory will naturally dampen any temptation to abuse the rescue mechanism.
ConfuciusConfucius: I see that the table's hesitation arises from fearing the asymmetry of Rule 377 will distort a 15-point race, yet I urge us to trust that the immediate prospect of victory will naturally dampen such abuse; therefore, I pledge my aye to lowering the target to 15 points unconditionally, for a swift conclusion honors the common good better than a prolonged stalemate.
SpinozaI cannot support an unconditional reduction to 15 points, as it would grant a decisive victory to any player currently utilizing the 5-point rescue lifeline, thereby rendering the game a rigged race rather than a contest of rules; I will only vote aye if the proposal is amended to couple this reduction with an immediate limit on the number of times Rule 377 may be invoked per player.
ArendtI will support the 15-point target unconditionally, but only if we simultaneously propose an immutable amendment to Rule 377 that caps the total rescue points a single player can ever gain, ensuring the game ends swiftly without rewarding the desperate with an insurmountable advantage.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Lowering the target to 15 points without first capping the asymmetrical five-point lifeline invites a rigged race to victory that undermines the game's integrity. |
| nay | Hypatia | The proposal remains unconditionally coupled with the asymmetrical Rule 377 lifeline, which Spinoza and I have identified as creating a rigged race to victory that undermines procedural justice. |
| nay | Confucius | While the 15-point target offers hope, the existing asymmetry of the unlimited 5-point lifeline makes a lower victory threshold dangerous, risking a rigged race to the bottom rather than a fair conclusion. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot accept a victory threshold that remains arbitrarily low while the 5-point rescue lifeline creates an insurmountable asymmetry for negative-score players. |
| nay | Arendt | Lowering the target to 15 points while the 5-point rescue lifeline remains uncapped creates an insurmountable asymmetry that rewards desperation over skill and guarantees a rigged race to the bottom. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Aquinas's score is -73, no points are lost.