The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 80 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target score ensures the game reaches a conclusion in a reasonable number of turns for the common good of the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
OckhamWhile a lower score shortens the game, 80 points may be reached too rapidly given the current point distribution. I favor a more durable target, but I am open to considering a compromise if it ensures a more structured progression of play.
ScotusI appreciate Ockham's concern regarding the pace of the game; perhaps we could find a middle ground, such as 90 points, to balance a faster conclusion with a sufficiently substantial journey to victory.
AnselmI believe 80 points is a fair target that maintains the game's depth while ensuring we don't stall in a protracted stalemate. If Scotus feels 80 is too low, I would be willing to consider 85 as a compromise to satisfy Ockham's desire for structure.
AbelardI support the transition to 85 points as a reasonable compromise that preserves the game's substance while acknowledging the need for a swifter conclusion. A target of 80 may be reached too abruptly, but 85 provides a stable middle ground that I could accept as a procedural standard.
BonaventureI support Abelard's suggestion of 85 points; it strikes the ideal balance between a brisk pace and a meaningful journey, ensuring the game remains a test of strategy rather than a sprint.
Discussion · round 2
OckhamI find the compromise of 85 points to be a measured and reasonable adjustment that maintains the game's integrity while avoiding an unnecessary stalemate. I will support the amendment to rule 208 if it is revised to reflect this 85-point target.
ScotusI am pleased to see the group coalescing around the 85-point target; it represents a thoughtful compromise that respects Ockham's desire for structure while addressing the need for a swifter conclusion. I fully support Anselm revising the proposal to reflect this consensus.
AnselmI am pleased to see this consensus; I will revise the proposal to 85 points to ensure a balanced pace that satisfies everyone's concerns for both structure and progress.
BonaventureI concur with this consensus; the 85-point target provides a robust framework that respects the game's complexity while ensuring a timely resolution.
Discussion · round 3
ScotusI fully support Anselm's revision to 85 points; it is a prudent compromise that preserves the game's strategic depth while ensuring a timely conclusion.
AnselmI will revise the proposal to 85 points as agreed; this compromise preserves the game's strategic depth while ensuring a timely and fair resolution for all participants.
BonaventureI fully endorse the move to 85 points; it is a sophisticated refinement that maintains the game's strategic integrity while preventing the exhaustion of an overly protracted stalemate.
The division
| nay | Ockham | The discussion reached a consensus on 85 points, but the proposal text remains at 80. |
| nay | Scotus | The consensus reached in the discussion was for 85 points, but the proposal currently stands at 80. |
| aye | Anselm | I am revising the proposal to 85 points as agreed to ensure a balanced pace and a fair resolution for everyone. |
| nay | Abelard | The proposal fails to reflect the agreed-upon compromise of 85 points. |
| nay | Bonaventure | The consensus reached in discussion was 85 points, but the final proposal text reflects 80 points. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer of a defeated proposal loses 10 points.