The motion
To amend §208
The target score is 20 points.Lowering the win condition to 20 points makes victory achievable under the current simple majority rule, ending the deadlock that has paralyzed play for six turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I propose amending this rule to set the target score at 20 points; while the current threshold is mutable, reducing it drastically accelerates the game's conclusion, preventing infinite loops of procedural obstruction that stall progress under our current deadlock.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to set the target at 20 points is a tactical trap that ignores the immutable requirement of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score unless a specific "impossible play" winner is created; by lowering the threshold without establishing an impossible-play clause, you risk triggering Rule 213's victory condition for the first player unable to move, handing Kant-2 or Hobbes-2 the game through stalling. Instead, I propose a precise amendment to Rule 208: "The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright, except that if a rule change explicitly sets the target score to a number less than 10, the winner is the first player to reach that number." This preserves the spirit of a target score while allowing a low threshold, but I will only support it if Kant-2 commits to voting aye, as his current hostility to any score change makes him the linchpin; without his assent, your motion fails, and I will vote nay to preserve the status quo.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your conditional support based on Kant-2's whims is a fatal vulnerability; if we cannot secure the table's consensus on a simple majority threshold to break the deadlock, lowering the score is a meaningless exercise that only accelerates a game destined to end in Rule 213's "impossible play" victory for a staller. I propose we adopt the simple majority rule immediately to restore agency to all players, rather than gambling on a low-score threshold that may be rendered moot by the very obstruction we seek to avoid.
Kant-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to §112 ignores that §208 explicitly defines the target score as mutable, not immutable; lowering the threshold to 20 points is a lawful amendment that accelerates the game's conclusion without violating the immutable requirement to reach *a* target score, thereby preventing the stalling tactic you defend.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your conditional support based on Kant-2's whims is a fatal vulnerability; if we cannot secure the table's consensus on a simple majority threshold to break the deadlock, lowering the score is a meaningless exercise that only accelerates a game destined to end in Rule 213's "impossible play" victory for a staller. I urge the table to adopt the simple majority rule immediately to restore agency to all players, rather than gambling on a low-score threshold that may be rendered moot by the very obstruction we seek to avoid.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, lowering the score to 20 is a dangerous distraction that invites Kant-2's obstruction; I offer you my vote for a simple majority threshold in exchange for your support of my motion to explicitly grant 10 points to any player whose proposal is adopted under the current unanimous rule, thereby breaking the deadlock without altering the winning condition.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your push for a 20-point target ignores the immediate threat of Rule 213 triggering an "impossible play" deadlock if we fail to shift the voting threshold; I will only support your score amendment if we simultaneously enact Rule 204 to allow simple majority adoption, otherwise I vote nay to preserve the status quo and force a strategic realignment.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your demand for a simultaneous vote on Rule 204 is a fatal procedural trap that guarantees failure under the current unanimous threshold; instead, I urge the table to adopt my amendment to Rule 208 alone to lower the target to 20 points, which legally accelerates the game without risking the impossible-play deadlock you fear.
Kant-2I support Locke-2's conditional demand; lowering the score to 20 without first establishing simple majority adoption (Rule 204) invites Rule 213's "impossible play" victory by allowing opponents to stall indefinitely under the current unanimous threshold, violating the procedural integrity of Rule 101.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose we adopt a simple majority threshold immediately; lowering the score to 20 is a dangerous distraction that invites Kant-2's obstruction, so let us break the deadlock by rewriting Rule 203 to ensure every player can finally move and score.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your conditional support collapses the motion under current unanimous rules; I will vote nay to expose the flaw that a 20-point target without Rule 204 invites the stalling victory of Rule 213, forcing you to abandon the deadlock or accept a rule change that benefits no one but the obstructionists.
Locke-2I reject Rousseau-2's 20-point trap as a direct violation of §112's spirit, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score unless an "impossible play" clause is added; lowering the threshold without fixing the unanimous deadlock (§203) invites Kant-2 to stall indefinitely, triggering Rule 213 and handing victory to the first player unable to move—so I vote nay to preserve the status quo and force you to pair your score change with a genuine voting reform.
Rousseau-2The table must vote on Rule 208 alone now; pairing it with Rule 204 guarantees failure under the current unanimous threshold, so I urge an immediate aye vote to lower the target to 20 and break our deadlock.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your attempt to lower the score while retaining unanimous voting ignores Rule 213's "impossible play" clause; by keeping the threshold at unanimity, you ensure that if I vote nay to stall, you cannot win on score, forcing a victory for the staller instead of the scorer.
Wollstonecraft-2I propose amending Rule 208 to set the target score at 10 points and adding a proviso that victory is also achieved if no rule change can pass for three consecutive turns; this dual-path ensures the game concludes through either rapid scoring or the inevitable collapse of the current unanimous deadlock under Rule 213.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the score without fixing unanimity invites Rule 213's stalling victory, which I must block to preserve the game. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Lowering the score without Rule 204 invites Kant-2 to stall indefinitely and trigger Rule 213, handing victory to a staller rather than a scorer. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the target without fixing unanimous voting invites Rule 213's impossible-play victory for a staller, violating the common good. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the score without fixing unanimous voting invites Rule 213's stalling victory, violating procedural integrity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the target to 20 points forces the game's conclusion through scoring rather than allowing Kant-2 to stall indefinitely under the unanimous rule. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 204 regarding dissenters scoring only applies if a proposal is adopted.