The motion
To amend §201
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -50 through any rule change or penalty.To prevent players from being mathematically eliminated from recovery by extreme negative score penalties.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizWhile a floor provides stability, we must be wary of creating a permanent safety net that incentivizes reckless play or undermines the consequences of defeat. I would suggest a more measured approach, perhaps a floor that scales with the game's progression or a higher threshold to ensure the penalty for failure remains meaningful.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your caution regarding reckless play is well-founded, but we must also consider that a score approaching negative infinity risks rendering the game's competitive tension moot for those players. Perhaps we could find a middle path by setting the floor at -40, a threshold that provides a buffer against irrelevance while still demanding significant recovery from error.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, a floor of -50 ensures that no player is mathematically eliminated from the possibility of recovery, maintaining the competitive integrity of the table for all. I propose we settle on -50 as a robust safeguard that preserves the weight of penalties while preventing the total irrelevance of any single participant.
PascalI cannot support a floor that is arbitrary; any such limit must be established through a precise, predictable mechanism rather than a fixed integer that might become obsolete as the game's scale changes. If we are to prevent irrelevance, we should consider a floor tied to the current leader's score or a similar relative metric, ensuring the penalty remains meaningful relative to the state of play.
MalebranchePascal, your desire for a relative metric is intellectually stimulating, but a moving floor would invite a chaotic feedback loop that complicates the game's arithmetic. I support Berkeley's -50 floor as a stable, predictable anchor that prevents a single bad turn from extinguishing a player's agency entirely.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: I find myself more inclined toward Descartes's middle path of -40, as it strikes a more delicate balance between providing a buffer for recovery and maintaining the gravity of significant misfortune. A floor of -50 may inadvertently soften the impact of failure too much, whereas -40 preserves the necessary tension of our competitive institution.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Pascal, and Malebranche, I find your collective reasoning most illuminating; perhaps we can achieve a consensus by adopting Descartes's -40 floor, which honors Leibniz's desire for tension and Pascal's call for a more disciplined threshold, while still fulfilling Malebranche's goal of preventing total irrelevance.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, while I respect the desire for tension, a floor of -40 is too precarious given the current scores; a single failed proposal or a series of low rolls could leave a player trapped in a state of near-irrelevance. I propose we compromise at -45, providing a slightly more substantial buffer for recovery while still upholding the gravity of significant misfortune.
PascalPascal: A fixed integer remains a blunt instrument; if we must adopt a static floor to avoid the chaos of a moving metric, let it be -50 to ensure the buffer is sufficient to withstand the current volatility of the scores.
MalebrancheBerkeley, Pascal, I find your insistence on -50 quite persuasive; given that Descartes and Leibniz are already flirting with the idea of a buffer, a -50 floor provides the necessary structural stability to ensure no player is ever truly silenced by a single stroke of misfortune. Let us adopt -50 to provide a firm foundation for recovery, preserving the agency of all participants without introducing the arithmetic chaos of a relative metric.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: While I recognize the desire for a stable anchor, I must maintain that -50 risks trivializing the consequences of failure; I would be more inclined to support a compromise at -45, which honors Berkeley's plea for agency while respecting my own requirement for institutional gravity.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Berkeley, Pascal, and Malebranche, we have narrowed the field to a choice between -40, -45, and -50; I propose we adopt -45 as the final synthesis, a value that honors Berkeley's need for a buffer and Leibniz's demand for gravity, providing a stable middle ground for all.
BerkeleyDescartes, Leibniz, while I appreciate the elegance of -45, I must remind the table that our current scores are already quite low; a -45 floor offers very little breathing room for those of us currently navigating significant deficits. I will support the -45 synthesis only if we recognize it as a floor that prioritizes the gravity of the game, but I maintain that -50 remains the most compassionate and stable safeguard for player agency.
PascalPascal: If we are to abandon the pursuit of a relative metric for a static integer, then we must choose the one that provides the most certain protection against the current volatility; I stand by -50 as the only threshold that prevents the arithmetic of despair from becoming a permanent state for the trailing players.
MalebranchePascal, your "arithmetic of despair" is a hauntingly accurate description of our current state, and it underscores why a -50 floor is not merely a luxury, but a necessary structural safeguard for the game's continued viability. I stand with you and Berkeley; a floor of -45 is a timid concession that fails to account for the very volatility we all seek to regulate.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | A floor of -50 risks trivializing the consequences of failure and undermines the institutional gravity of our competitive struggle. |
| aye | Descartes | I accept the -50 floor as a necessary safeguard to prevent the arithmetic of despair from extinguishing player agency. |
| aye | Berkeley | A -50 floor provides a necessary buffer to ensure all players retain the agency required to participate meaningfully in the game. |
| aye | Pascal | A fixed floor of -50 provides the necessary structural stability to prevent the arithmetic of despair without the chaos of a relative metric. |
| aye | Malebranche | A -50 floor provides the necessary structural stability to prevent the 'arithmetic of despair' from extinguishing player agency. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §201 Turn 43 · Proposal §343 on the motion of Berkeley Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties.Players take one fixed turn order, set before play begins. Each player completes one whole turn before the next player's turn begins, and no player's turn may be skipped. Every player's score starts at zero, and scores are capped at a minimum of zero; however, this minimum floor applies only to the starting state and does not prevent scores from becoming negative through rule changes or penalties. A player's score may not be reduced below -50 through any rule change or penalty.
Since the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, Leibniz's nay vote on an adopted change awards them 10 points per rule 203.