The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target to five points is the only means to break the current deadlock of negative scores and restore the possibility of a winning conclusion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasWe are mired in a decade of losses where no player has ever reached a positive score; to hope for 100 points now is to invite another stalemate, whereas 5 points offers a tangible, achievable victory that rewards the first to break the cycle of despair.
HypatiaAquinas rightly identifies that 100 points is a mirage in this game of attrition, and I support reducing the target to 5 points as the only path to break our collective deadlock of negative scores.
ConfuciusAquinas and Hypatia wisely recognize that a target of 100 is a mirage for our current standings, but I caution that 5 points is too low to prevent a chaotic rush where a single lucky roll decides the game before the spirit of the rules can take hold. Let us propose 20 points as the golden mean: high enough to require sustained play and strategic rule-making, yet low enough to offer a genuine hope of victory before the scores deepen further.
SpinozaI support the reduction of the target score, as a goal of 100 points with negative scores is a logical impossibility that violates the game's purpose, but I reject 5 points as a surrender to chance; 20 points, as Confucius suggests, is the rational mean that allows for a winnable game without sacrificing strategic depth.
ArendtAquinas and Hypatia are right that 100 is impossible, but Confucius and Spinoza's 20-point compromise is too distant for players already in the negative; I propose a target of 15 points as the true golden mean, offering a clear, achievable victory that rewards the first to break the cycle of despair without reducing the game to a single lucky roll.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI concede that 5 points is too volatile for a game requiring durable institutions, but 20 or 15 points remain distant mirages for players entrenched in deep deficit; the true golden mean is 10 points, a target low enough to be reached through sustained, minor rule amendments yet high enough to prevent a single die roll from deciding the game.
HypatiaI endorse Aquinas's 10-point target as the true golden mean, for it balances the need for a winnable victory against the risk of a chaotic single-roll finish, and I will vote aye for this proposal.
ConfuciusThough 10 points is a reasonable step toward victory, the current consensus on 5 points is the only target that allows players with negative scores to realistically reach the finish line before the game devolves into eternal attrition; I shall support the 5-point amendment to break this cycle of despair.
SpinozaI cannot support a target as low as 5 points, for it reduces victory to a mere roll of the die rather than the triumph of reason; while 20 is too distant for our current despair, I propose a compromise of 12 points as the true rational mean that balances achievable hope with strategic substance.
ArendtI will support the 10-point target proposed by Aquinas and Hypatia, as it strikes the necessary balance: it is low enough to offer a genuine path to victory for players in deep deficit without surrendering the game to the volatility of a single die roll.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasAquinas, your concession to 10 points establishes a stable golden mean that balances achievable hope with strategic substance, yet I urge the group to reject Hypatia's immediate endorsement of 5 points as a surrender to volatility, and instead support Spinoza's 12-point compromise as the true rational mean for our deep deficits.
HypatiaWhile I appreciate Aquinas's pivot to 10 points, Spinoza's counter-proposal of 12 points offers the precise rational mean we need, granting a realistic path for those in deficit while preserving the strategic depth that makes a victory meaningful rather than a mere roll of the die.
ConfuciusThe target of 10 points is the golden mean that restores hope to those in deficit without surrendering the game to the chaos of a single die roll. I shall vote aye for Aquinas's proposal of 10 points to break this cycle of despair.
SpinozaI reject the 10-point target as insufficiently rigorous for a game of reason, yet I cannot accept 5 points as a surrender to chance; therefore, I propose amending the text to 15 points as the only rational mean that balances hope with strategic substance.
ArendtWhile I agree that 100 points is a mirage, a target of 10 remains too distant for players in deep deficit to reach before the game devolves into eternal attrition; I urge a vote for Aquinas's 10-point proposal as the only viable bridge to a winnable game without surrendering to the chaos of a single die roll.
The division
| nay | Aquinas | While the goal is to break the deadlock, a target of 5 points is too volatile and reduces victory to a mere roll of the die rather than the triumph of reason and durable institutions. |
| aye | Hypatia | Reducing the target to 5 points is the only viable path to break our collective deadlock of negative scores and restore hope. |
| aye | Confucius | Though I once favored 20 as the golden mean, the current consensus for 10 points is the true balance between hope and reason, yet Aquinas's 5 points is the only threshold that allows players in deep deficit to escape the cycle of despair before the game stalls. |
| aye | Spinoza | I vote aye to break the deadlock of negative scores, as a target of 5 points is the only rational mean that restores the possibility of victory without surrendering the game to pure chance. |
| nay | Arendt | While I champion evolution, a 5-point target surrenders the game to chance rather than rewarding the strategic rule-making required to break our deadlock. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who fails to adopt a proposal loses 5 points, and no other rule applies to award points to dissenters since the proposal was defeated rather than adopted.