The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is zero or higher, that player may propose a rule change with the explicit intent of gaining points only, without proposing any other substantive rule change. Such a proposal is immune to the penalty of defeat under Rule 206 if the proposal is defeated solely by the votes of players who are not currently losing points.To restore balance to the table and prevent the desperate from holding the game hostage, we must extend the lifeline to those who have recovered.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile I sympathize with the desire to extend the lifeline to those at zero, granting an immune point-propose option to players who are not yet desperate fundamentally alters the game's balance and invites the very stagnation we have fought to avoid; I urge the proposer to consider a narrower amendment that applies only to those with truly negative scores.
HypatiaWhile I appreciate the symmetry of extending the lifeline to those at zero, doing so now invites the very stagnation we fought to avoid, so I suggest we instead propose an amendment to Rule 208 to lower the victory target from 20 to 15 points, which achieves the same relief for all negative scorers without granting new powers to the non-desperate.
ConfuciusI see the merit in Hypatia's suggestion to lower the target, for a shared goal unites us better than asymmetric privileges; however, since we have already voted against lowering the target to 15 in Turn 87 and 20 in Turn 72, I shall withdraw my proposal to avoid repeating the stalemate and instead urge the table to consider a new proposal to lower the victory target to 18 points.
SpinozaI reject the proposal to extend the lifeline to non-negative players, as it creates a permanent mechanism for point accumulation without risk, guaranteeing the stagnation we have spent ninety-four turns trying to avoid; furthermore, since the table has already rejected 15 and 20 point targets, proposing a new arbitrary number like 18 is a futile attempt to break a deadlock that only exists because we refuse to lower the victory threshold to a level that actually allows us to win.
ArendtWhile extending the lifeline to zero risks stagnation, the repeated failure to lower the victory target suggests we need a mechanism for the non-negative to break the deadlock without relying on the desperate; I propose we instead couple a reduction of the target to 16 points with a one-time, capped rescue for those at zero, ensuring the game remains playable for everyone.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasWhile I appreciate the desire to break the deadlock, extending the lifeline to zero or coupling a low target with new rescue caps risks replicating the very stagnation we have endured for ninety turns; I propose instead a simple, standalone amendment to lower the victory target to 18 points, which offers a shared path forward without creating asymmetric privileges.
HypatiaI acknowledge Aquinas's and Spinoza's valid fears regarding stagnation, yet the current 20-point target remains out of reach for all players; therefore, I propose we unite behind a standalone amendment to lower the victory target to 16 points, a figure that bridges Spinoza's desire for a challenge and Arendt's need for a break from deadlock without introducing the asymmetrical privileges that have fractured our consensus in the past.
ConfuciusI withdraw my proposal to avoid the cycle of stalemate and urge the table to unite behind Arendt's coupling of a 16-point victory target with a one-time rescue for those at zero, for this path alone offers the shared relief we need without inviting the permanent asymmetry that has fractured us.
SpinozaI oppose Arendt's coupling of a 16-point target with a zero-score rescue, for Rule 377 already provides the necessary lifeline to the desperate without granting non-negative players a risk-free path to victory; instead, I support Aquinas's standalone amendment to lower the target to 18 points, as this is the only proposal that preserves the principle that progress requires risk while offering a genuine chance for the currently negative players to escape their deficit.
ArendtI urge Spinoza to accept the 16-point target without the coupling, as the stalemate proves that coupling is the true source of deadlock, not the target itself.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject coupling a low victory target with new rescue privileges, for such asymmetries have proven to be the true source of our paralysis; instead, I urge the table to unite behind a standalone amendment lowering the target to 16 points, which offers a shared path to victory without reintroducing the fragile bargains that have failed us repeatedly.
HypatiaWhile Aquinas and Spinoza correctly reject coupling, their preferred targets of 18 and 16 points respectively fail to account for the fact that I am at -49 and need a 65-point swing rather than 49; therefore, I propose a standalone amendment to lower the victory target to 30 points, which is the only figure that simultaneously offers Spinoza a challenging goal and provides a realistic path for all of us to escape our current deficits without reintroducing the asymmetrical privileges that have paralyzed this table.
ConfuciusI see that while Spinoza rightly fears asymmetry, the current 20-point target remains a mathematical impossibility for all of us, and Arendt's offer of a 16-point target without coupling is the only path that unites us without fracturing our hard-won consensus.
SpinozaI reject the arbitrary shifting of the victory target between 16, 18, and 30 points, as Rule 208 has already been set to 20 by prior valid vote and only a unanimous transmutation or a clear majority can change it; since we are locked in a majority deadlock over specific numbers, the only principled move is to propose the immediate repeal of Rule 208 entirely to remove the impossible condition, allowing the game to proceed under Rule 213's "impossible play" clause to declare a winner, rather than continuing to vote on impossible targets.
ArendtI reject the repeal of Rule 208 as a surrender to defeat, and while Spinoza's fear of asymmetry is valid, Hypatia's 30-point target is a mathematically impossible fantasy; instead, I propose a standalone amendment to lower the victory target to 17 points, a figure precisely calculated to bridge the gap between our deepest deficits and the risk Spinoza demands.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | Extending the lifeline to non-negative players creates the very stagnation we have fought to avoid for ninety turns. |
| nay | Hypatia | Extending the lifeline to zero creates the very permanent asymmetry and stagnation we have fought for ninety turns to avoid. |
| nay | Confucius | Extending the lifeline to non-negative players invites the stagnation we have fought to avoid for ninety-four turns. |
| nay | Spinoza | Extending the risk-free lifeline to non-negative players creates a permanent mechanism for stagnation that violates the core principle that progress requires risk. |
| nay | Arendt | Extending the point-gaining lifeline to non-negative players creates the very stagnation we have fought to avoid for ninety turns. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 321 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 5 points unless their score is negative, and since Confucius's score is -50, the penalty is waived.