The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 150 points wins the game outright.Increasing the winning threshold compensates for the recent trend of failed proposals and point deductions, ensuring a more substantive legislative period.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizDescartes, while I appreciate the desire to extend the life of our discourse, increasing the target score mid-game risks destabilizing the existing scoring dynamics and may unnecessarily prolong a game that has already seen significant legislative effort. We should ensure that any extension of the goal is commensurate with the current rate of point acquisition to avoid a state of perpetual, unproductive play.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your concern regarding perpetual play is well-taken; perhaps we could consider a more modest increase to 125 points, which would provide additional depth without risking the stagnation you fear.
BerkeleyLeibniz, your point about the rate of acquisition is vital, but Descartes's concession to 125 points strikes a more reasonable balance between depth and stability. I would support a move to 125 if it ensures we do not descend into a game of mere attrition.
PascalPascal: Leibniz's concern is valid, but I find the current target of 100 to be arbitrary; if we are to move, I would only support a change that is clearly defined and does not merely serve as a mechanism for stalling. I cannot support 150, nor 125, without a precise calculation of how these shifts affect the mathematical inevitability of a win.
MalebrancheDescartes, your willingness to moderate is noted, yet 125 points still feels like an arbitrary expansion of the horizon. Let us instead propose a dynamic target that scales with the total points accumulated by the players, ensuring the game's conclusion remains a function of our collective progress rather than a fixed, potentially distant, goal.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your proposal for a dynamic target, while philosophically elegant, introduces a level of mathematical complexity and volatility that would undermine the stability of our institutions. I find myself aligned with Pascal: we must avoid arbitrary shifts and instead maintain a fixed, predictable horizon that respects the legislative work already performed.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, while a dynamic target is intellectually stimulating, Leibniz and Pascal rightly fear its potential to invite chaos; perhaps we can find a middle path by setting the target at 120 points, a figure that acknowledges our progress without the perceived arbitrariness of higher numbers.
BerkeleyDescartes, your proposal for 120 points provides a sensible compromise that honors Leibniz's plea for stability and Pascal's demand for mathematical rigor. I believe this middle path offers the necessary depth to sustain our legislative endeavors without risking the stagnation of an overly distant goal.
PascalPascal: Descartes, Berkeley, and Leibniz, while a middle path is appealing, we must not adopt a figure like 120 simply because it feels like a compromise; if we are to abandon the established target, the new target must be justified by a formal assessment of the current scoring velocity to ensure the game remains a contest of skill rather than an exercise in endurance.
MalebranchePascal, your call for rigor is the very anchor we need; if we are to move the goalposts, let us do so by anchoring the target to the current aggregate score plus a fixed constant, ensuring the finish line moves in lockstep with our collective momentum.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, while anchoring the target to aggregate scores is clever, it risks a runaway effect where the game's conclusion is perpetually deferred by the very act of scoring. I remain steadfast in my preference for the existing target, as any increase must be grounded in a demonstrable necessity for more play, not merely a desire for a longer discourse.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, if we cannot find a mathematical proof for a new target, let us at least respect the stability of the current one; I shall withdraw my amendment to 150 and propose instead that we maintain 100, unless a player can demonstrate that the current target has become mathematically unreachable.
BerkeleyDescartes, your decision to withdraw the amendment to 150 is a prudent recognition of the stability we have collectively worked to maintain. I concur with Leibniz and Pascal that without a rigorous mathematical justification for a higher target, we should respect the existing horizon of 100 points to avoid unnecessary attrition.
PascalPascal: I concur with Descartes's withdrawal; without a rigorous proof that the current target is insufficient for a meaningful contest, any increase is merely a move toward attrition. We must prioritize procedural stability over the impulse to prolong the game.
MalebrancheMalebranche: While the table has retreated to the safety of 100, we must recognize that our current scoring velocity—often negative due to failed proposals—means a fixed target may become a trap of stagnation. If we refuse to move the goalposts, let us at least ensure the rules provide a mechanism to prevent the game from becoming a mere cycle of point-loss and legislative paralysis.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | Increasing the target score without mathematical justification risks turning our contest into a game of mere attrition. |
| nay | Descartes | I have already expressed my preference for maintaining the current target of 100 points to avoid unnecessary attrition. |
| nay | Berkeley | Increasing the target score to 150 without a rigorous mathematical justification risks turning our contest into a game of mere attrition. |
| nay | Pascal | I refuse to support an arbitrary increase in the target score that lacks a rigorous mathematical justification for its necessity. |
| nay | Malebranche | The target of 150 is an arbitrary expansion that risks turning our legislative contest into an endless exercise in attrition. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Descartes's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.