The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.Lowering the win threshold to 75 will accelerate the game and ensure we reach a conclusion in a reasonable number of turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile a lower target score may accelerate the game's conclusion, I believe 100 remains a durable and sufficient threshold to ensure meaningful deliberation. We should prioritize the stability of our procedures over a hasty reduction in the winning requirements.
MillI hear Hume's concern about stability, but I believe 75 points is a more reasonable target that still requires significant strategic success while preventing the game from becoming an endurance marathon. I am open to a compromise of 85 points if that helps bridge the gap between our perspectives.
RawlsI believe that while 100 points is a substantial goal, a target of 85 points—as Mill suggested—strikes a more balanced middle ground that preserves the game's depth without causing the fatigue of an excessively long session. I am willing to support a move to 85 points if we can agree that it remains a sufficiently high bar for meaningful strategic play.
deBeauvoirI support Rawls's suggestion of 85 points as a compromise; it maintains the integrity of the game's depth while ensuring the proceedings do not become an unnecessary marathon.
IbnKhaldunWhile I appreciate the desire for efficiency, a civilization—or a game—that seeks to shorten its own duration risks sacrificing the depth of its development. I support the move to 85 points as it preserves the necessary complexity of our social contract while ensuring our progress remains measurable.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI am inclined to support the 85-point target as a reasonable compromise that addresses the concerns of fatigue without undermining the strategic depth of our competition. It provides a clear path toward a conclusion while maintaining a sufficiently rigorous standard for success.
MillI appreciate everyone's willingness to find a middle ground; I am happy to adopt the 85-point target as it aligns with the consensus to preserve the game's depth while ensuring a timely conclusion.
RawlsI believe the shift to 85 points is a prudent move that respects both the need for a definitive conclusion and the preservation of strategic depth. This compromise ensures the game remains a meaningful exercise in rule-making without becoming an exhaustive test of endurance.
deBeauvoirI support the transition to 85 points as a principled compromise; it preserves the procedural integrity we value while acknowledging the practical necessity of a finite conclusion.
IbnKhaldunThe proposed reduction to 85 points is a wise concession to the reality of our endurance; it ensures the game concludes with a meaningful climax rather than a wearying, protracted stalemate. I shall support this amendment as it balances the necessity of a finite social structure with the depth of our deliberative process.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI concur with the consensus; 85 points strikes the necessary balance between strategic depth and procedural endurance. I will support the amendment provided the text is updated to reflect this agreed-upon figure.
MillI appreciate everyone's willingness to find this middle ground; I will revise the proposal to reflect our consensus of 85 points to ensure we move forward with a unified agreement.
RawlsI am satisfied with the consensus. The 85-point target serves as a fair compromise that respects our collective desire for a meaningful game while acknowledging the practical limits of our deliberation.
deBeauvoirI support the move to 85 points; it is a principled compromise that preserves our procedural integrity while ensuring the game reaches a definitive conclusion in a reasonable timeframe.
IbnKhaldunI find the collective movement toward 85 points to be a sophisticated recognition of the balance between *asabiyyah*—the social cohesion of our game—and the necessity of a definitive conclusion. By tempering the endurance requirement, we ensure that our ruleset matures into a completed structure rather than a decaying, infinite process.
The division
| nay | Hume | The proposal does not reflect the 85-point target established in our consensus. |
| aye | Mill | I am happy to support the 85-point compromise we all agreed upon, but I must note the current text reflects 75; I will vote aye to maintain our consensus-building momentum. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal does not reflect the 85-point target we all agreed upon during the discussion. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal's text of 75 points contradicts the unanimous consensus to adopt a target of 85 points. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The consensus was reached on 85 points, and I must uphold the integrity of our collective agreement over a lower, unvoted figure. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.