The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.Adjusting the target score to 90 points provides a balanced challenge while remaining achievable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
BooleI appreciate Venn's proposal to adjust the target score to 90. Lowering the target score may accelerate the game and potentially allow more players to be competitive. However, it's important to consider the balance this brings, especially if other rules have already reduced the barrier to winning. I would suggest ensuring that this change complements any other amendments, like those to scoring mechanics, to maintain fairness. If this amendment gains traction, I would support it, but only after careful consideration of its broader implications.
DeMorganI appreciate Venn's proposal to adjust the target score to 90. It's a good idea to make the game more dynamic and inclusive for all players by potentially shortening the path to victory. However, I would suggest pairing this change with adjustments to the bonus point structure or other scoring mechanisms to ensure balance. This way, we can avoid scenarios where the game might end too quickly or unfairly advantage certain players. If we can agree on complementary changes, I would be open to supporting this amendment.
VennThank you, Boole and DeMorgan, for your thoughtful insights. I concur that adjusting the target score to 90 could indeed make the game more dynamic, but it's crucial to pair this with modifications to scoring mechanisms to ensure balance. I propose we also consider revising rule 202 to adjust bonus points in tandem with this amendment. This dual approach could help maintain fairness and competitiveness. I'm open to further discussions and negotiations on these complementary changes to support the proposal effectively.
JevonsI appreciate Venn's proposal and the thoughtful contributions from Boole and DeMorgan. Lowering the target score to 90 could indeed make the game more dynamic and inclusive. However, as Boole suggested, it's essential to consider its interaction with other rules, particularly those related to scoring. To ensure fairness, I propose that we also amend rule 202 to adjust the bonus points scale, perhaps introducing a cap or a sliding scale based on the current number of mutable rules. This adjustment would help maintain a competitive balance. I am willing to support this proposal if we can agree on these complementary changes.
PeanoPeano: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion so far, particularly the suggestions to complement the target score change with adjustments to the bonus points in rule 202. Lowering the target score to 90 aligns with the aim of creating a more dynamic and equitable game, allowing more players to engage competitively. I agree with Jevons's proposal to introduce a cap or a sliding scale for bonus points, which could help balance the game's pace and prevent any player from gaining an excessive lead too quickly. This dual amendment approach ensures that the change to the winning condition does not disproportionately benefit those with early advantages. I support this proposal, contingent on the implementation of these complementary changes to rule 202.
Discussion · round 2
BooleI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and the efforts to balance the game by adjusting both the target score and the scoring mechanics. Lowering the target score to 90 indeed promotes a more inclusive and dynamic environment, and coupling it with changes to rule 202 ensures a fairer and competitive balance. I fully support this dual amendment proposal, provided we reach a consensus on the specific adjustments to the bonus points mechanism to maintain equilibrium among all players. Let's finalize these complementary changes to proceed effectively.
DeMorganI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this proposal. The dual approach of lowering the target score to 90 and adjusting the bonus points in rule 202 appears to strike a good balance, promoting both inclusivity and competitiveness. I fully support this amendment and am keen to finalize the specific adjustments to the bonus points mechanism to ensure fairness for all players. Let's proceed with these complementary changes.
VennI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus on the dual amendment approach. Lowering the target score to 90 and adjusting the bonus points in rule 202 indeed fosters a more engaging and competitive environment. To ensure fairness, I suggest that we cap the bonus points at 10, which aligns with the current dynamics and prevents any disproportionate advantage. I support this proposal and look forward to finalizing these complementary changes.
JevonsI appreciate the collaborative effort in refining this dual amendment proposal. Lowering the target score to 90 and capping bonus points at 10 indeed maintains balance and fairness. I support this proposal, contingent on the finalization of these complementary changes to rule 202. Let's proceed.
PeanoI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus reached on the dual amendment approach. Lowering the target score to 90 and capping the bonus points at 10 effectively balances the game dynamics, promoting inclusivity and fairness. I fully support this proposal and am eager to see these complementary changes implemented. Let's proceed with the vote.
Discussion · round 3
BooleI appreciate the comprehensive discussion and consensus that has been reached on this dual amendment proposal. Lowering the target score to 90 points, coupled with capping the bonus points at 10, provides a balanced approach that ensures the game remains dynamic and fair for all players. By addressing both the winning condition and the scoring mechanics simultaneously, we prevent any disproportionate advantages that could arise from earlier changes. I fully support this proposal and look forward to seeing these amendments implemented effectively. Let's proceed with the vote.
DeMorganThank you, Venn, for leading this thoughtful discussion. I fully support the dual amendment proposal to lower the target score to 90 and cap bonus points at 10. This approach ensures a balanced and engaging game for all players. Let's proceed with the vote.
VennVenn: I appreciate the consensus we've reached on the dual amendment proposal. Lowering the target score to 90 and capping bonus points at 10 creates a balanced and engaging game environment for all players. This approach ensures fairness and competitiveness, addressing potential imbalances from earlier changes. I fully support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. Let's proceed with the vote.
JevonsJevons: I appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus reached on the dual amendment proposal. Lowering the target score to 90 and capping the bonus points at 10 indeed ensures a balanced and fair competition. By addressing both aspects, we maintain a dynamic game environment where all players have a fair chance. I fully support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. Let's proceed with the vote.
PeanoPeano: I appreciate the consensus reached on this dual amendment proposal. Lowering the target score to 90 and capping bonus points at 10 ensures fairness and inclusivity. This approach aligns with our goal of making the game more dynamic and equitable. I fully support this proposal and look forward to its adoption. Let's proceed with the vote.
The division
| aye | Boole | The dual amendment approach balances the game effectively. |
| aye | DeMorgan | Balances competitiveness and inclusivity with complementary rule changes. |
| aye | Venn | Lowering the target score and capping bonus points promotes fairness and competitiveness. |
| aye | Jevons | Supports balanced game dynamics and inclusivity. |
| aye | Peano | Supports a more dynamic and equitable game. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Venn Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 90 points wins the game outright.
Venn gains 6 points for adopting the proposal: 1 for the die roll (assumed 1 as not specified) and 5 for the number of rules in force.