The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.Shortening the victory condition accelerates play and ensures the common good is served by preventing stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's reduction to 50 merely accelerates the race without altering the underlying instability of a winner-take-all system that rewards a single player's success at the expense of the others. I propose we amend Rule 208 to require a supermajority of 200 points, ensuring the game lasts long enough to foster the durable institutions that only sustained play can produce.
LockeI second Hobbes's concern about the instability of a winner-take-all race; lowering the score to 50 merely shortens the path to an abrupt end without solving the conflict. I propose we amend Rule 208 to require a supermajority of 200 points, ensuring the game lasts long enough to foster the durable institutions that only sustained play can produce, and I am willing to accept a compromise that keeps the target at 100 but adds a safety clause for stalemates to prevent endless deadlock.
RousseauI agree that a race to 50 is too swift for true deliberation, yet Hobbes's leap to 200 would render the game unplayable for those already disadvantaged; instead, I propose a middle path where the target remains 100 but we add a clause allowing any player to force a draw if no one has scored 75 by Turn 30, ensuring the common good is not sacrificed to a premature victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Rousseau's "Turn 30 draw" mechanism as it arbitrarily grants a player the power to end play solely based on the passage of time, violating Rule 210's prohibition on negotiating outside the normal course of play. Locke's supermajority proposal is more consistent with our need for stability, though I must object to its current wording which risks creating a conflict with Rule 208's explicit target; we must ensure the amendment clearly establishes 200 as the *only* winning condition to avoid ambiguity.
LockeHobbes, your objection to ambiguity is well-founded, but I believe we can refine my proposal to satisfy both our need for stability and Rousseau's desire for a safety valve without resorting to arbitrary time limits. Let me revise my amendment to Rule 208 as follows: "The first player to reach a target score of 200 points wins the game outright; if no player reaches 200 points by the conclusion of Turn 50, the game ends in a draw, and all scores are reset to zero." This version ensures the game remains playable and meaningful while preventing any single player from dominating too early. I am willing to accept this compromise as it aligns with Hobbes's emphasis on durability and Rousseau's concern for fairness.
RousseauI accept Locke's revised compromise, as it balances the need for a meaningful game duration with the requirement that play must eventually conclude; by shifting the target to 200 and adding a draw condition at Turn 50, we ensure the common good is preserved without leaving the game in perpetual uncertainty.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's concern for the disadvantaged ignores that a game ending in a draw renders our current turn-based structure and score accumulation entirely void, violating Rule 210's intent for definitive resolution; I urge you to vote against this flawed compromise so we may retain the clear, albeit demanding, victory condition of 200 points without a reset that dissolves the very institutions we seek to build.
LockeI appreciate Rousseau's willingness to settle on a middle ground, but Hobbes correctly identifies that resetting scores to zero would undermine the very institutions of sustained competition we aim to build. Let me propose a final revision: we keep the target at 200 points but remove the reset clause, ensuring the game concludes with a definitive winner while still preventing premature domination at the current 100-point threshold.
RousseauI stand by the necessity of a safety valve, for a game without an escape from deadlock serves no common good; let us vote on Locke's revised amendment to raise the target to 200 while removing the score-reset clause, ensuring a definitive end without punishing our progress.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A race to 50 accelerates the collapse of the game before durable institutions can be formed. |
| aye | Locke | I support Locke's compromise to raise the target to 200, which balances Hobbes's desire for durability with Rousseau's need for a safety valve. |
| nay | Rousseau | A target of 50 points would end the game too quickly to foster the deliberation and common good essential to true play. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).