The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins the game outright.The current 100-point threshold is mathematically unreachable given the scoring mechanics and negative scores, making the game impossible to win by normal means.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWhile Spinoza's proposal of 10 points offers a swift resolution to this prolonged deadlock, it risks rendering the game trivial and ignores the desperate need for a target score that still allows a glimmer of hope for those currently in deep deficit. I suggest we instead aim for a moderate reduction, such as 50 points, which balances the urgent need to end this stalemate with the dignity of a competitive struggle.
HypatiaI appreciate Spinoza's urgency to break this deadlock, and I agree with Aquinas that 10 points is too low to maintain the game's dignity; however, with scores ranging from -35 to -10, a target of 50 points remains mathematically impossible for most without massive point inflation. I propose we meet in the golden mean at 35 points: it is low enough that the current leader could win in a single favorable turn, yet high enough to force genuine strategic play rather than trivial luck.
ConfuciusI see that while 10 is too hasty and 35 remains a distant dream for those in deficit, Aquinas's 50 offers the true golden mean: it is attainable through sustained cooperation without dissolving the game's dignity into triviality. Let us settle on 50 to restore hope to the discouraged while ensuring victory demands genuine effort.
SpinozaI reject the compromise of 50 or even 35 as a betrayal of reason; with scores in the negative, no player can mathematically reach those targets without violating the immutable prohibition against retroactive scoring (§107) or engaging in impossible point inflation. I maintain that a target of 10 points is the only logically consistent solution: it acknowledges that the game is already won by the first to escape the trap of negative infinity through the very act of proposing a winning rule, for a game that cannot end is a game that has already failed.
ArendtI urge Spinoza to reconsider the 10-point target, which risks collapsing the game into a trivial coin toss before the current negative scorers can even stabilize their positions; a threshold of 25 points offers the necessary urgency to break this deadlock while preserving the dignity of a struggle that still demands strategic effort from all players.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI join Hypatia and Arendt in rejecting Spinoza's 10-point threshold as a surrender to triviality, yet I concede that 50 remains a distant dream for those deep in deficit; let us settle on 20 points, a figure low enough to make victory possible for the leader in a single favorable turn while preserving the necessity of strategic play.
HypatiaI propose a decisive compromise of 20 points: it honors Arendt's need for strategic dignity while granting the leader, who is only 10 points behind the target, a plausible path to victory that Spinoza's 10 might trivialize and Aquinas's 50 would make impossible.
ConfuciusI endorse the compromise of 20 points as the true golden mean: it grants the leader a genuine, if narrow, path to victory without reducing our noble struggle to a mere roll of the dice, thus restoring hope to the game while honoring the dignity of all players.
Spinoza20 points is a false compromise that demands impossible point inflation from negative scorers; only a target of 10 points acknowledges the logical reality that the game is already lost without an immediate, feasible exit.
ArendtArendt: I support the 20-point compromise as the true golden mean; it grants the leader a viable path to victory while demanding enough strategic effort to prevent the game from becoming a trivial coin toss, unlike Spinoza's 10 which ignores the need for dignity.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI find the 20-point target to be the most prudent golden mean, as it offers the leader a genuine, albeit narrow, path to victory without reducing our noble struggle to a mere roll of the dice. However, should this proposal fail, I will be compelled to reconsider Spinoza's 10-point option as the only remaining escape from this mathematical deadlock, for a game that cannot end is a game that has already failed.
HypatiaI endorse the 20-point compromise as the true golden mean, for it offers the leader a viable path to victory while demanding the strategic dignity Spinoza seeks without collapsing the game into triviality.
ConfuciusI accept the 20-point threshold as the golden mean that balances our need for immediate victory with the dignity of the struggle, and I cast my aye vote to break this deadlock.
SpinozaI reject the 20-point compromise as it relies on the impossible arithmetic of rescuing negative scores to reach a target they cannot mathematically attain without violating the principle against retroactivity; 10 points is the only logically consistent exit that allows the game to end immediately rather than stagnate in an eternal deadlock.
ArendtI stand with the 20-point consensus as the necessary golden mean: it offers the leader a real path to victory without collapsing the game into the triviality of a single die roll, which would dishonor the long struggle we have all endured. Spinoza's 10-point demand ignores the dignity of the remaining players who, while in deficit, still deserve a contest that rewards strategic effort rather than mere chance.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | I reject this trivialization of the game, as the 20-point golden mean already provides a plausible path to victory without collapsing the contest into mere chance. |
| aye | Hypatia | Spinoza's 10-point target is the only mathematically viable solution to break this deadlock, and the recent consensus has already shifted toward accepting a low threshold as the necessary escape from impossible arithmetic. |
| nay | Confucius | A target of ten points rewards mere chance over the strategic effort required to restore the game's dignity. |
| aye | Spinoza | Only a target of 10 points is mathematically feasible for the current leader to reach without violating the prohibition on retroactive scoring, making it the only rational path to end this deadlock. |
| nay | Arendt | A 10-point target reduces the game to a trivial coin toss that dishonors the strategic struggle of the remaining players. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 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 vote division since the threshold for majority voting has not yet been triggered.