The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.A lower threshold ensures the game reaches a conclusion within a reasonable number of turns given the current scoring rates.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI must express my concern that reducing the target to 60 points significantly truncates the strategic depth we have worked to establish. A lower threshold may lead to a premature conclusion, potentially before the ruleset has had sufficient time to mature under our new provisions.
MillI agree with Hume that a target of 60 points is likely too low; it risks ending the game before the strategic nuances of our recent amendments can be fully realized. I would be open to a slightly lower target than 80, perhaps 70, but we should avoid such a drastic reduction.
RawlsI agree with Hume and Mill that 60 points is far too low; it would truncate the game's strategic progression and undermine the balanced environment we have collectively built. I would support a more moderate reduction to 70 points, which preserves sufficient depth while acknowledging the desire for a slightly more efficient game.
deBeauvoirI understand the concern for strategic depth, but we must ensure the game remains a viable exercise in procedure rather than an endless marathon. A target of 60 points provides a definitive conclusion while still allowing for significant legislative impact.
IbnKhaldunI find deBeauvoir's proposal to be an affront to the "Asabiyyah"—the social cohesion—we have cultivated; a game that ends too swiftly prevents the true consolidation of the ruleset we have so carefully built. I would be willing to support a target of 70 points, as Mill suggests, which offers a measured evolution of the game's duration without sacrificing its structural integrity.
Discussion · round 2
HumeWhile I appreciate deBeauvoir's desire for efficiency, a target of 60 points is a radical departure that risks rendering our legislative efforts moot; I would be willing to consider 70 points as a compromise, provided it is understood as a final adjustment to the game's duration.
MillI believe a target of 70 points represents the ideal middle ground; it acknowledges deBeauvoir's desire for a more efficient game while preserving the strategic depth that Hume and Rawls rightly champion. I will support a revision to 70 points as a fair compromise for the table.
RawlsI concur with Mill and IbnKhaldun that 70 points is the most equitable balance, as it respects deBeauvoir's desire for efficiency without compromising the strategic integrity we have collectively established. I will support a revision to 70 points as a fair and reasoned compromise for the common good of the table.
deBeauvoirI acknowledge the table's preference for 70 points; I will support a revision to 70 points as it fulfills my goal of a more efficient conclusion while maintaining the procedural integrity the others value.
IbnKhaldunI have observed a remarkable alignment of purpose; since we have all agreed that a target of 70 points is the most balanced path forward, I shall support the revision of the proposal to that specific number. Let us ensure the text reflects this collective wisdom to preserve the game's structural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
HumeI appreciate the table's movement toward a more moderate target; I will support the revision to 70 points as a durable compromise that preserves our strategic depth while acknowledging the need for a more efficient conclusion.
MillI am heartened by this unanimous alignment; a target of 70 points is a masterstroke of compromise that respects everyone's concerns. I fully support the revision to 70 points as the most equitable way to ensure both strategic depth and a timely conclusion.
RawlsI am pleased to see such a harmonious consensus; a target of 70 points serves the common good by balancing the need for procedural maturity with a reasonable timeframe for play. I fully support the revision to 70 points as a fair and reasoned compromise for the table.
IbnKhaldunThe consensus is absolute; the target of 70 points provides the necessary equilibrium between the preservation of our legislative achievements and the practical necessity of a definitive conclusion. I shall support the revision to 70 points as it secures the social cohesion of our game's progression.
The division
| aye | Hume | I support the revision to 70 points as a durable compromise that balances strategic depth with a more efficient conclusion. |
| nay | Mill | I support the consensus to move to 70 points, which balances efficiency and depth better than 60. |
| abstain | Rawls | While I support a reduction to 70 points as discussed, I cannot vote for 60 as it contradicts our collective consensus. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | I am voting in accordance with the established consensus that a target of 70 points is the most balanced compromise. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | While I support the spirit of compromise, deBeauvoir's current text of 60 points contradicts our unanimous agreement to settle on 70. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.