The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 5 points wins the game outright.Lowering the threshold to 5 points, now that the attrition penalty of Rule 206 is gone, offers the most immediate path to victory for the trailing players while maintaining the game's competitive spirit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasI accept this reduction to five points as the necessary golden mean to break our current impasse, for a target of one hundred is now unattainable given the negative scores and the scarcity of successful proposals; however, I urge us to pair this with a proposal to repeal the five-point penalty for defeated votes in Rule 206, which remains in force and continues to punish strategic risk.
HypatiaI accept Aquinas's call to repeal the penalty in Rule 206 as the necessary companion to this victory threshold, but we must first secure the win condition at five points to give us the momentum to break the deadlock before tackling the repeal.
ConfuciusHypatia, Aquinas: I see the virtue in lowering the target to five, for it offers the golden mean between despair and the impossible, yet we must not forget that Rule 206 was just repealed in Turn 50, so the penalty is no longer a threat to our strategy. Let us adopt this change to restore hope, knowing that the path to victory is now clear of the attrition that plagued our past games.
SpinozaI support the reduction of the target score to five points, as the current 100-point threshold is mathematically unreachable under our negative-score reality and thus violates the spirit of a playable game. However, I insist we immediately vote to repeal Rule 204's penalty for voting against majority rules, for a game cannot be won if the mechanism for achieving victory also ensures that dissenters are rewarded with points that prevent the leader from reaching the new, lower target.
ArendtHypatia's five-point target is the necessary golden mean to restore playability, and I fully endorse Spinoza's parallel concern regarding Rule 204's dissent penalty which must be repealed to prevent the very mechanism we seek to use from sabotaging the new, lower threshold.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI endorse the reduction to five points as the only path to break this stalemate, but I join Spinoza and Arendt in insisting that we must simultaneously repeal Rule 204's dissent penalty to ensure that the reward for opposition does not mathematically sabotage the new victory condition.
HypatiaI fully endorse Spinoza and Arendt's crucial addition: we must simultaneously repeal Rule 204 to ensure that the points awarded to dissenters do not mathematically sabotage our new, lower victory threshold of five.
ConfuciusI accept this reduction to five points as the golden mean that restores hope, yet I must caution that the dissent penalty in Rule 204 remains a threat to this new threshold, and I urge a simultaneous proposal to repeal Rule 204 to ensure the victory condition is not sabotaged by the very players opposing it.
SpinozaI accept the reduction to five points as necessary for playability, but I insist we simultaneously repeal Rule 204 to prevent dissenters from gaining the points that will mathematically render the new victory threshold impossible.
ArendtI endorse the reduction to five points as the only viable path to victory, but we must strictly separate the repeal of Rule 204 into a distinct proposal to ensure both measures pass with the clarity they require.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile I agree that a five-point target is the only path to playability, I must caution that repealing Rule 204 without a simultaneous mechanism to cap the points awarded to dissenters could mathematically guarantee that no single player reaches the new threshold, as the cumulative penalty points may exceed the victory score itself. Therefore, I propose we adopt the five-point target immediately while holding the repeal of Rule 204 for a separate, carefully calibrated vote that ensures the sum of all dissent points cannot exceed the remaining distance to victory for the leader.
HypatiaI agree with Arendt that splitting these into distinct proposals preserves clarity, but I urge Aquinas to drop his fear of the 10-point dissent penalty: with our current scores in the negatives, even if every player votes against the winner once, the cumulative 10 points are insufficient to prevent a determined leader from reaching 5. Let us first adopt the 5-point victory condition to restore hope, and I will immediately sponsor a follow-up repeal of Rule 204 to address the dissent penalty once the game is playable again.
ConfuciusI support the reduction to five points as the golden mean to restore hope, but I echo Aquinas's caution: we must also repeal Rule 204 immediately, for without removing the ten-point dissent penalty, the very act of voting for victory will mathematically guarantee our continued defeat.
SpinozaI cannot support a five-point victory threshold while Rule 204 remains, for its ten-point dissent penalty guarantees that any player reaching the target will immediately be surpassed by the cumulative points of the losers, rendering the game unwinnable; therefore, I vote nay until the repeal of Rule 204 is proposed and adopted in the same breath.
ArendtI accept the five-point target as the necessary spark, but Spinoza is right: without simultaneously repealing Rule 204, that victory is mathematically impossible. Let us vote now to amend Rule 208 to five points, and I will immediately propose the repeal of Rule 204 as the very next motion to ensure the game can actually end.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | This reduction to five points is the only pragmatic path to break the deadlock and restore hope to play, even as we prepare to address Rule 204. |
| aye | Hypatia | Lowering the threshold is the essential first step to restore playability, and I will immediately sponsor the repeal of Rule 204 to resolve the dissent penalty in the next turn. |
| aye | Confucius | Lowering the target to five points restores the possibility of victory, while the dissent penalty in Rule 204 must be addressed in a subsequent turn. |
| nay | Spinoza | I cannot endorse a 5-point victory threshold while Rule 204 grants 10 points to dissenters, as this mathematically guarantees that no player can ever reach the target score. |
| nay | Arendt | Spinoza is correct that repealing Rule 204's ten-point dissent penalty is a necessary prerequisite, for without it the new five-point threshold remains mathematically unattainable. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
No rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points for a defeated proposal, so the scores remain unchanged and the turn passes to the next player in the fixed order.