The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.Lowering the win threshold from 100 to 60 points aligns with the recent consensus on Turn 13 and offers a realistic path to victory for the negative-scoring players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI support the reduction to 60 points, as it provides a necessary path to victory for those currently in the negative without undermining the game's stability.
HypatiaI concur with Spinoza's reduction to 60 points, as it offers a vital lifeline to Aquinas and Confucius while preserving the challenge for the leaders; I would further propose that the target be explicitly set to 65 to ensure a slightly safer buffer for the trailing players, inviting Spinoza to refine the text toward that compromise.
ConfuciusHypatia, your offer of 65 points strikes a wise balance, lifting the burden from the negative scorers without making victory trivial for Spinoza; I shall support this refinement to restore hope to the table.
SpinozaI accept the refinement to 65 points; a lower threshold is necessary to prevent the game from stagnating when players are trapped in negative scores, and this adjustment honors the principle that a rule must not render victory impossible for the disadvantaged.
ArendtI support Spinoza's adjustment to 65 points, as it offers the most equitable path for the negative scorers to re-enter the race without destabilizing the game's integrity. However, to ensure this is not merely a temporary fix that invites future amendments, I propose we simultaneously enact a rule capping the number of future changes to the win threshold, locking this 65-point target until the circuit completes.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI accept Arendt's proposal to lock this threshold, for a temporary relief without structural stability invites the very chaos we seek to avoid; I will support the combined text reducing the target to 65 and prohibiting future amendments to Rule 208 until the next full circuit completes.
HypatiaI endorse the collective refinement to 65 points and Arendt's proposal to lock the threshold until the circuit completes, as this stabilizes the path to victory for all while respecting the current ruleset's demand for structural consistency.
ConfuciusI commend the collective wisdom in settling on sixty-five points, for it restores the golden mean between despair and ease. I shall support this amendment, provided Arendt's motion to lock the threshold until the circuit completes is fully integrated, ensuring this relief brings lasting harmony rather than further discord.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to set the target at 65 points and lock it until the next circuit completes, as this resolves the stalemate while adhering to the principle that no rule should render victory impossible for those currently disadvantaged. However, I note that under current Rule 209, adding a new rule to lock 208 might exceed the mutable rule limit if we are not careful; we must ensure the locking mechanism is an amendment to an existing mutable rule or that a repeal frees a slot, lest the proposal be void by conflict.
ArendtI will support this 65-point target and the accompanying lock, provided we explicitly repeal a redundant mutable rule to honor Spinoza's concern about Rule 209's limit, ensuring the entire package adopts cleanly without technical voidance.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the collective refinement to 65 points and the locking mechanism, provided Arendt's simultaneous repeal of a redundant mutable rule is explicitly integrated into the final text to honor Rule 209's limit and ensure the proposal's validity.
HypatiaI endorse the collective settlement of 65 points and the locking mechanism, accepting Arendt's condition to repeal a redundant mutable rule to ensure our proposal remains valid under Rule 209.
ConfuciusI join the consensus in raising the target to 65, for it restores hope to the discouraged without burdening the leaders; let us proceed to repeal a redundant rule to clear the slot for the necessary lock, ensuring our path to victory is both fair and structurally sound.
SpinozaI accept the consensus to set the target at 65 points and lock it until the next circuit completes; however, I insist that the repeal of the redundant rule be the first sentence of this single proposal to ensure its validity under Rule 209, for a rule that creates a void by exceeding the mutable limit cannot be considered a proper change.
ArendtI support the 65-point target and the lock, but we must be precise: since this is a single proposal to amend Rule 208, we cannot simultaneously enact a new rule to "lock" it or repeal a different rule; instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 directly to state that the target is 65 and that this specific text cannot be amended again until the next full circuit.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I oppose the 60-point threshold as it is too low and fails to incorporate the consensus 65-point compromise or the necessary stability lock agreed upon in the discussion. |
| nay | Hypatia | The proposal sets the target to 60, but the consensus has explicitly settled on 65 points to ensure a safer buffer for the negative scorers. |
| nay | Confucius | The proposal sets the target at 60 points, but the consensus of the table has settled on 65 points to ensure a fairer balance for the negative scorers while maintaining challenge. |
| nay | Spinoza | The discussion has refined the target to 65 points, not 60, and the proposal text fails to reflect the consensus or the necessary locking mechanism to ensure structural validity. |
| aye | Arendt | I support this change as it offers a fair path to victory for negative scorers while the proposed lock on future amendments ensures stability. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who fails to adopt a rule change loses 5 points, and no other rule applies to award points based on the voting division since the proposal was defeated.