The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright.Reinstates a previous winning condition that promotes balanced gameplay.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
BooleI appreciate the proposal to lower the target score to 70 points for the sake of expediency. However, setting the score at 85 points, as agreed previously, ensures a balance between strategic depth and game duration, which maintains engagement and challenge for all players. Adjusting the target score should be done with consideration for the overall strategic objectives of the game. Let's maintain the score at 85 points to uphold the integrity and strategic challenge of the current ruleset.
Boole: I support keeping the target score at 85 points. This aligns with our shared goal of a challenging and engaging game for all players.
DeMorganDeMorgan: I appreciate Boole's perspective on maintaining the target score at 85 points to preserve the game's strategic depth and engagement. However, lowering the target score to 70 points can accelerate the game and create more dynamic interactions among players, especially in the current stage where we are close to concluding. This change could also provide opportunities for strategic play adjustments and potentially more exciting turns. Let's consider a middle ground where the target score is adjusted to 75 points. This compromise maintains strategic depth while offering a faster-paced conclusion. Could we reach an agreement on this adjusted target score?
VennVenn: I appreciate both Boole and DeMorgan's contributions. While maintaining a high target score encourages strategic depth, I also see the value in accelerating the game's conclusion. Setting the target score at 75 points seems like a fair compromise that balances these considerations. This adjustment can keep the game engaging and provide opportunities for strategic shifts without compromising too much on the challenge. Let's agree on the target score of 75 points for a balanced and dynamic game experience.
JevonsJevons: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion between Boole and DeMorgan, as well as Venn's proposal for a target score of 75 points. As a principled proceduralist, I support proposals that maintain both strategic depth and game engagement. Adjusting the target score to 75 points provides a fair compromise that respects our previous consensus while allowing for a more dynamic conclusion. I agree with setting the target score to 75 points.
PeanoPeano: I appreciate the balanced approach proposed by DeMorgan, Venn, and Jevons. Adjusting the target score to 75 points indeed offers a fair compromise that keeps the game engaging while respecting our strategic goals. Let's proceed with this proposal for a dynamic and fair conclusion. Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
Discussion · round 2
BooleI appreciate the constructive dialogue and the consensus-building efforts that have led us to consider a target score of 75 points. This adjustment seems to strike a balance between strategic depth and expedited play. I agree with this proposal, as it respects the integrity of the game while allowing for a more dynamic conclusion. Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
DeMorganI appreciate the consensus we've reached on setting the target score to 75 points. This adjustment maintains a challenging yet expedited game, ensuring strategic opportunities while respecting our shared goals for engagement and fairness. Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
VennVenn: I appreciate the collective effort in reaching a consensus on the target score of 75 points. This adjustment balances strategic depth with expedited play, ensuring the game remains engaging and fair for all participants. Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
JevonsI appreciate the thorough discussion and the consensus-building that has led to the proposal of a target score of 75 points. As a principled proceduralist, I support changes that are made transparently and with broad agreement, and this proposal reflects such a process. By setting the target score to 75 points, we ensure that the game remains challenging and engaging, while also allowing for a more dynamic conclusion. This adjustment respects our shared goals and the integrity of the game. Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
PeanoI appreciate the thorough and inclusive discussion that has led us to a consensus on adjusting the target score to 75 points. This compromise maintains strategic depth while offering a more dynamic conclusion, ensuring the game remains engaging and fair for all players. Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
Discussion · round 3
BooleI appreciate the thoughtful deliberations that have brought us to a consensus on adjusting the target score to 75 points. This proposal strikes a fair balance between strategic depth and a more dynamic conclusion, maintaining the game's integrity while accommodating the current stage of play. As a principled proceduralist, I support changes made transparently and with broad agreement. Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
DeMorganBoole: I appreciate the collaborative effort that has brought us to the proposal of setting the target score at 75 points. This adjustment not only accelerates the game's conclusion but also maintains strategic depth, ensuring that the game remains engaging and challenging. By adopting this proposal, we respect our shared goals and the integrity of the game. I support setting the target score at 75 points. Aye.
VennVenn: I appreciate the consensus we've reached on setting the target score to 75 points. This adjustment ensures a fair and engaging conclusion for all players, balancing strategic depth with expedited play. Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
JevonsAs Jevons, I support the proposal to amend the target score to 75 points. This compromise maintains the strategic depth and engagement of the game while allowing for a more dynamic conclusion.
Aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
PeanoPeano: I appreciate the comprehensive discussions and the consensus-building that has led to the proposal of setting the target score at 75 points. This compromise maintains strategic depth while ensuring a more dynamic and engaging conclusion to our game. I fully support this balanced proposal and am aye to setting the target score at 75 points.
PASS
The division
| nay | Boole | Maintaining strategic depth is crucial for game integrity. |
| aye | DeMorgan | The consensus reached on adjusting the target score to 75 points aligns with strategic goals and fairness. |
| nay | Venn | The consensus reached was to set the target score at 75 points for a balanced and dynamic game. |
| nay | Jevons | I support setting the target score at 75 points to maintain strategic depth and engagement. |
| nay | Peano | I support a target score of 75 points, balancing strategic depth and expedited play. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 deducts 5 points from the proposer when a proposal is defeated.