The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright. This target score is fixed and may not be altered by any rule change.To preserve the durability of our institutions and prevent the winning condition from being eroded by strategic rule-changes, we must lock the target score at 100.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
PlotinusI endorse this amendment, for it secures the durable integrity of our winning condition against the volatile whims of majority rule. By locking the target at 100, we preserve the clear institutional standard that has guided our play thus far.
PorphyryI endorse Proclus’s proposal, as fixing the target score at 100 provides the essential institutional stability we all value and aligns with the structural safeguards we supported earlier.
ProclusI support this amendment, for locking the target score at 100 preserves the game's integrity and prevents the strategic chaos of a movable goalpost, which is essential for fair play.
IamblichusI endorse this amendment, as fixing the target score at 100 preserves the meritocratic integrity of the game and prevents the strategic instability of a movable goalpost. I vote aye.
BoethiusI vote aye, recognizing that while I champion the evolution of our mechanisms, the winning condition must remain a fixed anchor to preserve the game’s strategic coherence. This amendment is a necessary structural safeguard that prevents the target score from becoming a moving target, ensuring that our efforts toward fairer play are measured against a stable standard.
Discussion · round 2
PlotinusAs the proposer, I declare the debate closed and move to vote on my amendment to Rule 208.
PorphyryI move to amend Proclus's proposal to simply state: "The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright."
The current text already fixes the score at 100, and since Rule 211 prioritizes lower numbers, the existing rule already prevents a higher-numbered rule from changing it; adding this tautology risks creating unnecessary textual conflict.
ProclusI yield to Porphyry’s wisdom; since Rule 211 already protects Rule 208 from higher-numbered changes, adding this tautology is unnecessary and risks creating textual clutter. I withdraw my proposed amendment in favor of preserving the current, sufficient text.
BoethiusI yield to Porphyry’s insight and withdraw my support for the amendment, recognizing that Rule 211 already provides the necessary protection and that preserving the clean text aligns with our shared commitment to institutional efficiency.
Discussion · round 3
PlotinusI accept Porphyry’s clarification and the subsequent withdrawal, as preserving the rule’s clean text honors the table’s preference for institutional efficiency and avoids the clutter of redundant safeguards.
The division
| nay | Plotinus | Porphyry correctly identifies that Rule 211 already secures the integrity of Rule 208, making this tautological amendment redundant and a source of unnecessary textual clutter. |
| nay | Porphyry | The proposal is withdrawn, and the current text already provides sufficient protection against rule changes via Rule 211. |
| abstain | Proclus | I withdraw my support as the amendment is redundant under Rule 211 and risks unnecessary textual conflict. |
| nay | Iamblichus | The amendment is a tautology that adds unnecessary textual clutter, as Rule 211 already provides sufficient protection for the existing target score. |
| nay | Boethius | The proposal is withdrawn and the amendment is redundant, so voting aye on a defeated motion serves no purpose. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
The proposal was defeated, so no rule change occurs and no points are awarded or deducted as no rule authorizes scoring for a defeated proposal.