The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright, except that a player with a negative score who adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding them exactly one point wins the game immediately upon that adoption, regardless of the voting threshold, provided the game has not already ended by any other means.Raising the target to 5 points breaks the deadlock while preserving the desperate one-point win condition that keeps the game alive.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI cannot support raising the target score to five points while we remain trapped in negative scores; such a move only prolongs the deadlock that has already cost us three previous games. Instead, I propose we immediately amend Rule 208 to lower the target to zero points, granting an instant victory to the first player who successfully adopts any Rule 365 proposal that awards even a single point.
HypatiaI reject Aquinas's zero-point target as it would trigger an immediate win for whoever first adopts a Rule 365 proposal, ending the game before we can stabilize the ruleset; instead, I propose amending the target to 3 points, a compromise that grants Arendt a realistic path to victory while preserving the special one-point clause for the desperate.
ConfuciusHypatia's three-point target is a prudent middle path, yet it remains too distant for the desperate players; I propose we settle on a target of two points to balance Arendt's lead with a realistic hope for Aquinas, Hypatia, and myself to escape our negative scores without sacrificing the spirit of the game.
SpinozaI cannot support raising the target to five, three, or even two points when the ruleset already contains a mechanism for desperate players to win immediately upon gaining a single point; the target must remain at one point to avoid creating a permanent deadlock that violates the spirit of Rule 101 and the purpose of the game.
ArendtI reject the drift toward higher targets that favors the comfortable while leaving the desperate to starve; the current text of Rule 208 already grants the desperate an immediate, threshold-bypassing victory on a single point, so the general target must remain at one to ensure the game ends as soon as any player can climb out of the red.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI reject the proposal to raise the target, for it renders the desperate players' special victory clause in Rule 365 irrelevant by forcing them to survive the race to the finish line first. Instead, I urge us to codify the consensus that the general target must remain at one point to ensure the game concludes as soon as the desperate mechanism is successfully employed.
HypatiaI stand with Arendt and Spinoza: raising the target to three, two, or five points only deepens the deadlock for the desperate, so I withdraw my current proposal and instead support amending Rule 208 to explicitly lower the general target to zero points, ensuring the game ends the instant any player successfully adopts a Rule 365 proposal awarding even a single point.
ConfuciusHypatia's pivot to a zero-point target is wise, as it harmonizes the general victory condition with the desperate player's special clause, ending the deadlock instantly when any Rule 365 proposal succeeds. I will support this amendment to ensure the game concludes fairly and quickly, honoring the spirit of the rules over the trap of endless voting.
SpinozaI reject the pivot to zero points; it renders the target score meaningless by ending the game before any player with a positive score can win through ordinary play, violating the fundamental purpose of a game with a target score. I insist the target remain at one point, the only value that honors the special clause for the desperate without destroying the victory condition for all.
ArendtAquinas and Hypatia, your pivot to zero points destroys the distinction between a desperate escape and a general victory, violating the spirit of Rule 208; Spinoza is correct that the target must remain at one point to honor the desperate clause without rendering the general condition moot, so I will support the status quo to preserve the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI reject the pivot to zero points, Spinoza, for it renders the general victory condition moot and violates the spirit of a game requiring a target score. Instead, I propose amending Rule 208 to explicitly state that a player reaching one point wins, thereby harmonizing the general condition with the desperate clause without destroying the distinction between ordinary and emergency victory.
HypatiaI withdraw my support for the zero-point target to avoid rendering the general victory condition moot, and I join the consensus to formally amend Rule 208 to explicitly state that the general target remains one point, harmonizing the ordinary win condition with the desperate escape clause.
ConfuciusI agree with Arendt and Spinoza that the target must remain at one point to preserve the distinction between ordinary victory and the desperate escape clause. Let us adopt the consensus to codify this clarity in Rule 208, thereby ending this round of speculation and allowing the game to proceed with its intended purpose.
SpinozaI reject the pivot to a zero-point target as it nullifies the victory condition for players with positive scores, violating the game's fundamental purpose; however, since the consensus has rightly settled on a one-point target, I support the formal amendment to codify this clarity and end the debate.
ArendtI will vote against this amendment; the current text of Rule 208 already explicitly guarantees a one-point victory for the desperate without ambiguity, so codifying the status quo is redundant and distracts from the urgent need to resolve the voting threshold deadlock.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject raising the target to five points as it deepens the deadlock for desperate players who cannot survive a race to a higher score. |
| nay | Hypatia | I oppose raising the target to five points as it deepens the deadlock for desperate players who need an immediate path to victory. |
| nay | Confucius | The current text of Rule 208 already explicitly secures the one-point victory for the desperate, making this redundant amendment unnecessary and diverting attention from the critical deadlock in voting thresholds. |
| nay | Spinoza | Raising the target to five points creates a permanent deadlock for negative players, violating the imperative that the game must end. |
| nay | Arendt | Hypatia's proposal to raise the target to five points deepens the deadlock for desperate players who already have a mechanism to win immediately with one point, violating the game's purpose of resolving stalemates. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change occurs; no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, and the voting threshold remains unchanged because no Rule 365 proposal was adopted.