The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.I propose lowering the target score to 60 to ensure the game reaches a conclusion in a timely manner given our current pace.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI am concerned that lowering the threshold to 60 points prematurely truncates the strategic depth we have worked so hard to build with our new institutions. We should prioritize the stability of our governance framework over a hasty acceleration of the game's conclusion.
MillI appreciate Hume's concern for depth, but I believe a 60-point threshold provides a necessary balance, ensuring the game remains engaging while allowing our newly established institutions to have a meaningful impact. I am open to considering a slightly higher midpoint if the table feels 60 is too low, but I believe we should aim for a more accelerated pace to keep the momentum high.
RawlsI believe that while a 60-point threshold may accelerate the game, we must ensure it doesn't undermine the viability of our new institutions; perhaps we could find a middle ground at 65 points to preserve strategic depth while still addressing Mill's desire for momentum.
deBeauvoirI find the current threshold of 70 points to be a structurally sound target that preserves the integrity of our newly established institutions; a reduction to 60 points risks making our legislative achievements superficial before they can be fully realized. I am inclined to support Rawls's suggestion of 65 points as a principled compromise that maintains strategic depth while acknowledging the desire for momentum.
IbnKhaldunI concur with deBeauvoir and Rawls; the preservation of our institutional architecture requires a threshold that permits the fruition of the Treasury and Ministry of Equilibrium. A target of 65 points offers the necessary acceleration Mill seeks without rendering our collective governance a mere prelude to victory.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find the consensus coalescing around 65 points to be a prudent middle ground; it respects the need for momentum while ensuring our new institutions remain meaningfully relevant to the game's outcome. I am prepared to support a move to 65 points as a compromise that preserves the strategic integrity of our ruleset.
MillI appreciate the table's willingness to find a middle ground, and since Hume has signaled support for the 65-point target, I am happy to adjust my proposal to that figure to ensure we maintain both momentum and institutional integrity.
RawlsI am pleased to see that the table has reached a consensus on 65 points; it represents a fair compromise that balances the need for game momentum with the preservation of our new institutional framework. I will support the amendment to 65 points as it ensures our collective governance remains meaningful without becoming an arduous marathon.
deBeauvoirI am satisfied with the consensus at 65 points, as it represents a principled compromise that preserves the utility of our institutions while ensuring the game remains dynamic.
IbnKhaldunI am pleased to see the table reach this equilibrium; a target of 65 points is the most historically sound compromise to ensure our nascent institutions are tested without becoming stagnant. I shall support Mill's revised proposal to move to 65 points.
Discussion · round 3
MillI am pleased to see such a unified consensus; by moving to 65 points, we achieve a balance that honors our institutional progress while maintaining a dynamic pace of play. Since everyone has signaled their support for this specific target, I will now revise the proposal to 65 points to reflect our collective agreement.
The division
| nay | Hume | While I support the spirit of a middle ground, Mill's current text remains at 60 points despite our consensus on 65. |
| aye | Mill | I am happy to support the consensus of 65 points, so I will vote aye to the proposal as written to maintain our collective agreement. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal text specifies 60 points, but our consensus was reached on a target of 65 points. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus established in the discussion, which was a target of 65 points. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The proposal text of 60 points contradicts our unanimous consensus to move to 65 points. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer of a defeated proposal to lose 10 points unless they were already at a score of 0 or less.