The motion
To add a new rule
A player may spend 40 points to increase the target score defined in rule 208 by 10 points.This introduces a mechanism for players to extend the game's duration through a significant investment of points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, while the desire to extend the duration of our intellectual exercise is noted, a cost of 40 points is prohibitively high and would likely serve only to stall the game's conclusion rather than refine its competitive essence. I would suggest we consider a more measured increment or a more accessible point cost to ensure such a mechanism remains a viable instrument of the players' will.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your observation regarding the prohibitive cost is most astute; if we are to provide a mechanism for extending the game, it should be an accessible tool for strategic adjustment rather than a nearly impossible luxury. Malebranche, perhaps a compromise of 25 points would allow for meaningful agency without threatening the game's momentum.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, I concur that 40 points is an excessive barrier that would render the rule practically inert; a cost of 25 points, as Descartes suggests, provides a meaningful strategic choice for those who wish to prolong the contest without making the mechanism purely ornamental.
PascalMalebranche, while I appreciate the intent to provide strategic agency over the game's duration, I must insist on even greater precision: we must specify that the target score can only be increased if the current leader has not yet reached the existing target. Furthermore, I find Descartes's suggestion of 25 points to be a more reasonable threshold for such a significant alteration than your original 40.
MalebrancheMalebranche: My colleagues, I accept your collective wisdom; a cost of 25 points, coupled with Pascal's necessary safeguard to prevent a leader from being retroactively penalized, strikes the perfect balance between strategic agency and game momentum.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your willingness to adopt the consensus is most commendable; I find the synthesis of a 25-point cost and Pascal's safeguard to be a robust and stable foundation for this new rule.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, the consensus has crystallized into a most elegant synthesis; I fully support Malebranche's proposal as amended by our collective reasoning.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a state of remarkable clarity; I support the proposal to add a rule allowing a player to spend 25 points to increase the target score by 10 points, provided the current leader has not yet reached the existing target. This synthesis preserves both strategic agency and the game's necessary momentum.
PascalThe consensus appears to have reached a stable and procedurally sound state; I support the addition of the rule with the cost set at 25 points and the safeguard regarding the current leader.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Since we have reached a perfect synthesis of cost and safeguard, I shall finalize the wording for the vote. My colleagues, your refinements have transformed a mere impulse into a sophisticated mechanism for collective governance.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: The synthesis is indeed complete; I find the 25-point cost and Pascal's safeguard to be a most prudent arrangement that honors both agency and stability. I cast my support for this refined proposal.
DescartesDescartes: My colleagues, the consensus has achieved a state of near-perfect equilibrium; I find the synthesis of a 25-point cost and Pascal's safeguard to be a most luminous and stable foundation for this new rule. I fully support the proposal as formulated by Malebranche.
BerkeleyThe consensus has reached a state of profound stability; by incorporating Pascal's safeguard and Descartes's pricing, we ensure this rule serves as a strategic lever rather than a tool for arbitrary obstruction. I support the proposal as Malebranche has finalized it.
PascalThe consensus is procedurally sound; the proposed cost of 25 points and the safeguard regarding the current leader ensure the rule is both functional and fair. I move that debate be closed and the proposal be put to a vote.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Since the consensus has reached such a sublime equilibrium between strategic agency and procedural fairness, I declare debate closed and move to the vote.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal as written fails to reflect the consensus regarding the 25-point cost and the necessary safeguard for the current leader. |
| nay | Descartes | I must vote against the proposal in its current form, as the consensus has moved toward a 25-point cost and the inclusion of Pascal's safeguard. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal fails to incorporate the consensus regarding the 25-point cost and Pascal's safeguard. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal fails to reflect the agreed-upon cost of 25 points and lacks the necessary safeguard regarding the current leader. |
| nay | Malebranche | The cost of 40 points is prohibitively high and fails to reflect the consensus reached during our discussion. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, so according to rule 206, the proposer loses 3 points.