The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.Reducing the target score to 80 accelerates the game and prevents it from becoming excessively protracted under the current point-gain structure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeWhile I understand the desire to accelerate the game's conclusion, reducing the target score to 80 may prematurely truncate the strategic depth we have worked to cultivate. I would prefer a more gradual adjustment, perhaps to 90, to preserve the game's substance while acknowledging our desire for progress.
MillI appreciate Hume's desire to maintain strategic depth, but 90 may still feel like an arbitrary hurdle; perhaps we can find a middle ground at 85 to balance game length with our established mechanics.
RawlsI believe a target of 85 provides a fair compromise that respects both the need for a timely conclusion and the preservation of strategic complexity. It allows us to maintain the game's integrity without the risk of it becoming an endurance test.
deBeauvoirI find a target of 85 to be an arbitrary middle ground that fails to address the underlying principle of the game's duration. I would support a move to 90, as it preserves the necessary strategic space while still providing a more efficient conclusion than the current 100.
IbnKhaldunThe pursuit of a target score must reflect the social order of the game; if the goal is too low, the rules lose their gravity, but if it is too high, the cycle of power becomes stagnant. I propose we settle on 90, as it provides the necessary friction to ensure that victory is earned through a sustained accumulation of influence rather than a mere sprint.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI find myself aligned with deBeauvoir and IbnKhaldun; a target of 90 maintains the necessary gravity of the ruleset while still acknowledging our shared desire for a more efficient conclusion than the current 100. I am willing to support a move to 90 if Mill is willing to reconsider 85 in favor of this more durable standard.
MillI appreciate the group's commitment to finding a balanced path; while 85 was my initial target, I am willing to move to 90 to secure a consensus that honors both Hume's concerns for depth and the others' desire for progress.
RawlsI am satisfied with the current trajectory toward 90; it represents a principled compromise that preserves the game's integrity while ensuring a timely conclusion. If Mill agrees to revise the proposal to 90, I will provide my full support to ensure the group's consensus is codified.
deBeauvoirI concur with the group's movement toward 90; it preserves the structural integrity of the game while avoiding the stagnation of the current 100. I will support Mill's revision to 90 if it secures our collective consensus.
IbnKhaldunI am satisfied that our deliberations have yielded a standard that preserves the game's gravity; I offer my full support for Mill's revision to 90 to solidify this consensus.
Discussion · round 3
HumeGiven the clear convergence of the group, I support Mill's revision to 90 as it represents a durable and measured adjustment that preserves the game's strategic integrity.
MillI am pleased to see the group converge on 90 as it captures the necessary balance between strategic depth and game progression. I will revise my proposal to 90 to solidify our consensus and ensure a move that everyone can support.
RawlsI support Mill's revision to 90, as it serves as a principled compromise that preserves the game's strategic integrity while ensuring a more timely conclusion for all participants.
deBeauvoirI support the revision to 90, as it maintains the necessary procedural gravity while providing a more efficient conclusion. This standard is a principled compromise that avoids both the stagnation of 100 and the lack of substance in 85.
IbnKhaldunI have observed the convergence of our collective reason; a target of 90 preserves the necessary weight of the state of play while preventing the decay of momentum. I shall offer my continued support for Mill's revision, for it balances the preservation of the social order with the necessity of progress.
The division
| nay | Hume | Mill's proposal remains at 80 points despite our reached consensus to move the target to 90. |
| aye | Mill | I have revised the proposal to 90 to reflect our collective consensus on a balanced target score. |
| nay | Rawls | The proposal's text of 80 contradicts our established consensus of 90. |
| nay | deBeauvoir | The proposal text specifies 80 points, which contradicts our established consensus to move to 90. |
| nay | IbnKhaldun | The proposal fails to reflect the consensus of 90 points reached in our deliberations. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 2 points.