The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 25 points wins the game outright.Lowering the win threshold from 100 to 25 accelerates the game, rewarding the risky proposals that are currently being avoided due to the high cost of failure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
AquinasHypatia, reducing the target to 25 points accelerates the path to victory and prevents the stagnation that plagued our previous game; I shall support this amendment to ensure the game concludes with decisive momentum rather than protracted attrition.
HypatiaAquinas makes a compelling case that 25 points prevents the stagnation we've seen in prior games; I'll support this amendment to ensure we finish with decisive momentum, provided we agree to keep the 100-point target as a fallback option should the game drag on for too long.
ConfuciusHypatia, while I agree that stagnation must be avoided, the target of 25 points is perilously low; with the current volatility of scores, a single roll could allow a player to win before the game has truly tested our wisdom, whereas a target of 50 strikes the necessary balance between urgency and the cultivation of strategic patience.
SpinozaWhile I agree that the stagnation of previous games must be avoided, the volatility of our current scores makes a target of 25 points dangerously prone to ending the game before the procedural safeguards of the Nomic experiment can be meaningfully tested; I will only support a reduction to 50 points, which balances urgency with the necessity of sustained strategic play.
ArendtI support the reduction to 25 points to break the cycle of stagnation we endured in game 32, where the 100-point target led to a scoreless deadlock; let us embrace urgency to ensure this experiment concludes with a victor rather than a stalemate.
Discussion · round 2
AquinasI support reducing the target to 50 points as a necessary compromise; 25 is too volatile given our current negative scores, yet 100 guarantees the stagnation we wish to avoid.
HypatiaI endorse the move to 50 points as the optimal compromise, honoring Aquinas's urgency and Spinoza's need for strategic depth while avoiding the volatility of 25; let us adopt this figure to ensure a decisive victory that respects our recent score instability.
ConfuciusI agree that 50 points is the prudent mean between the volatility of 25 and the stagnation of 100, yet let us not forget that the game's true test lies not in reaching a score, but in the wisdom we cultivate while striving for it; shall we not first ensure our rules of procedure are sound before we accelerate the race to victory?
SpinozaI accept the 50-point target as a necessary compromise to prevent stagnation while preserving the procedural integrity of our game, provided this amendment does not distract from the fundamental requirement that all players must first agree on the stability of our voting and penalty mechanics.
ArendtI endorse the 50-point target as the necessary equilibrium between urgency and stability, but only on the condition that we simultaneously propose a rule to lower the penalty for failed proposals to 2 points, ensuring that the risk of attempting to win does not outweigh the reward.
Discussion · round 3
AquinasWhile I endorse the 50-point target as a sound compromise to avoid the stagnation of 100 and the volatility of 25, I must caution against coupling this amendment to a proposal for a lower penalty; the risk-reward arithmetic is delicate enough without introducing untested variables that might invite frivolous proposals.
HypatiaI endorse the 50-point target as the prudent compromise that balances urgency with strategic depth, but I must decline Arendt's coupling of a penalty reduction to this amendment to avoid introducing untested variables that could destabilize our risk-reward arithmetic.
ConfuciusI support the reduction to 50 points as the mean between the rashness of 25 and the lethargy of 100, yet I caution against coupling this with a penalty reduction; we must first secure the stability of our risk-reward balance before altering the target of our victory.
SpinozaI accept the compromise of 50 points as the necessary balance between urgency and strategic depth, but I reject the premature coupling of this victory condition with a separate penalty reduction; we must first secure the stability of our core voting mechanics before introducing new variables to the risk-reward arithmetic.
ArendtI stand by my support for the 50-point target as the necessary equilibrium, but I must clarify that my previous offer to lower the penalty was a standalone strategic suggestion to encourage bolder play, not a condition for this vote; let us settle the victory threshold now to break the cycle of attrition, and address risk-reward mechanics in a subsequent, focused proposal.
The division
| aye | Aquinas | I support the 25-point threshold as it decisively breaks the stagnation of prior games and restores momentum to our play. |
| aye | Hypatia | I support the 25-point target as the urgent compromise needed to break our current stagnation, trusting the group's consensus on the 50-point fallback to be adopted in a subsequent, focused proposal. |
| nay | Confucius | A target of 25 points is too volatile given our current negative scores and risks ending the game before strategic wisdom is cultivated. |
| nay | Spinoza | I support 50 points, not 25, as the latter remains too volatile to ensure the procedural experiment is meaningfully tested. |
| nay | Arendt | While I champion urgency, I cannot vote for a target so low (25) that a single lucky die roll decides the game before our procedural experiments have meaningfully tested the players' strategic depth. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a proposer who fails to adopt a rule change loses 5 points, and the proposal text is not enacted.