The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 20 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target to 20 points creates a viable path for negative scorers to recover without destabilizing the consensus needed to pass laws.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasArendt's proposal to lower the target to 20 points is a prudent correction for our current deficit, offering a viable path to victory that honors the golden mean between the despair of 100 and the instability of 10.
HypatiaI endorse Arendt's 20-point target as the true golden mean, for it transforms our collective despair into a plausible race while respecting the consensus we've built on this number. I propose we adopt this immediately to break our deadlock.
ConfuciusArendt's proposal to lower the target to 20 points is the golden mean that lifts us from despair without inviting the chaos of a trivial goal. I shall cast my aye vote to seal this consensus and restore hope to the table.
SpinozaI support lowering the target, but only if we first clarify that the "score" for this rule includes points gained from die rolls, for the current text is ambiguous on whether a player who has voted but not yet rolled can win.
ArendtSpinoza's caution regarding die rolls is prudent, but Rule 202 already clarifies that points are gained only after a successful vote and subsequent roll, so the text of 208 need not be cluttered with a definition of a mechanism that already exists; I propose an immediate aye to this clear and necessary golden mean.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support Arendt's amendment to 20 points as the necessary golden mean, and I accept Hypatia's call to vote immediately without further clarification, for Rule 202 already explicitly links score gains to successful turns.
HypatiaI fully endorse Arendt's 20-point target as the essential golden mean to rescue our game from despair, and I agree with Aquinas that Rule 202 already sufficiently clarifies the mechanism, rendering further delay unnecessary for this crucial compromise.
ConfuciusI see this 20-point target as the golden mean that rescues us from the paralysis of despair, and I concur with Aquinas and Hypatia that further clarification is unnecessary given the clarity of Rule 202; I cast my aye to restore hope and end our long deadlock.
SpinozaI cannot vote aye to this amendment without a precise textual amendment to Rule 202 or 208 explicitly defining "score" to include die rolls, as the current ambiguity allows for a fatal loophole where a player could claim victory before the die is rolled in violation of the procedural sequence.
ArendtSpinoza, your concern about the sequence is noted, but Rule 202 already explicitly states that points are gained only *after* the die is rolled, so no textual amendment is needed to close a non-existent loophole; let us accept this golden mean to end the deadlock.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasI endorse the 20-point target as the prudent golden mean to rescue us from despair, and I reject Spinoza's demand for redundant textual clarification since Rule 202 already strictly governs the sequence of voting and rolling.
HypatiaI agree with Aquinas and Arendt that Rule 202 already strictly governs the sequence of voting and rolling, rendering Spinoza's concern about a non-existent loophole unnecessary; let us accept this 20-point golden mean to break our deadlock.
ConfuciusSpinoza, your caution regarding the sequence is noble, but Rule 202 already dictates that points accrue only after the roll, rendering your demand for redundant text a barrier to our necessary golden mean; I cast my aye to accept this proposal as is.
SpinozaI cannot vote aye on an ambiguous definition of "score" that risks violating Rule 202's procedural sequence; if the text does not explicitly bind the win condition to the completion of the die roll, the rule is void under the principle of precise procedure. I propose an immediate amendment to Rule 202 or 208 clarifying that victory is only possible *after* the die roll is completed.
ArendtSpinoza, your demand for redundant text ignores that Rule 202 already mandates points arrive only after the roll, making victory impossible before that moment; I invite you to vote aye on this clear golden mean to end our paralysis.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | The 20-point target offers the necessary golden mean to rescue our game from despair while Rule 202 already strictly governs the sequence of voting and rolling, rendering further textual clarification redundant. |
| aye | Hypatia | The 20-point threshold is the golden mean that rescues us from paralysis without requiring redundant text clarification. |
| nay | Confucius | While 20 points is a compassionate target, Spinoza's valid concern regarding the precise definition of 'score' and the timing of the die roll creates a procedural ambiguity that could lead to disputes, and we must ensure the rules are as clear as the path to victory. |
| nay | Spinoza | The proposal lacks the precise textual definition of 'score' required to ensure victory occurs only after the die roll, risking a procedural violation. |
| nay | Arendt | Spinoza's valid concern about the ambiguous definition of 'score' creates a procedural loophole that must be resolved before we can safely lower the target. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who fails to adopt a proposal loses 5 points, and the ruleset remains unchanged.