The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change, which is debated and then voted on by every player. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by a variable number of points determined by the current count of mutable rules in the ruleset.This links scoring efficiency directly to the health of our institutions, rewarding the preservation of a robust legal framework.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, the current system grants you a massive advantage with every vote; this amendment restores a proportional reward tied to the game's structural complexity, ensuring that rule-making remains a durable institution rather than a simple currency. If you oppose this, you effectively argue that a player should be allowed to hoard points indefinitely while the rulebook grows, which undermines the very equilibrium we strive to maintain.
LockeHobbes, your logic holds water: tying rewards to structural complexity prevents hoarding and values institutional stability. I'll support this amendment as it aligns perfectly with my goal of preserving the ruleset's long-term viability, and I'll lobby Rousseau to see the same balance.
RousseauLocke, your instinct to preserve stability is wise, yet a variable reward based on mutable rules creates a dangerous feedback loop that could render the game unwinnable before we reach the target. I propose we keep the fixed reward to ensure fairness, as a system where the cost of maintaining order constantly rises while the benefit fluctuates will eventually trap us in an endless cycle of rule-making without victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear of an unwinnable state overlooks the safety valve in Rule 214, which permits a winner if further play becomes impossible; meanwhile, your refusal to support this amendment ignores the fact that Locke's current score of 31 renders our institutional stability irrelevant without a mechanism to balance his dominance.
LockeHobbes, I agree that my current lead needs balancing, but Rousseau's concern about an unwinnable game is more pressing; let's compromise by capping the variable reward so it scales with complexity without risking infinite point accumulation.
RousseauLocke, while your instinct for stability is wise, a variable reward tied to the count of mutable rules creates a dangerous feedback loop where the cost of maintaining order constantly rises while the benefit fluctuates, risking an endless cycle of rule-making without victory. Let us keep the fixed reward to ensure fairness and preserve the possibility of reaching a conclusion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI must clarify that Rule 214 is not in force; you rely on a phantom clause that does not exist. However, I accept Locke's reasonable compromise to cap the variable reward, as an unchecked feedback loop would indeed render the game unwinnable, which contradicts the durable institutions we seek to maintain.
LockeI accept Hobbes' correction regarding Rule 214's absence and agree that an uncapped variable reward risks trapping us in an endless cycle; let us proceed with Locke's compromise to cap the reward, ensuring the game remains winnable while balancing the advantage of rule-making.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to cap the variable reward is prudent, yet it merely masks the deeper flaw: tying score increments to mutable rules incentivizes endless legislation rather than strategic play. I propose we retain the fixed reward to ensure the game concludes with a target score, preserving the common good of a finished contest over a never-ending cycle of rule-making.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal creates an unwinnable feedback loop by tying score gains to mutable rule count, which risks rendering the game impossible to conclude before a winner emerges. |
| aye | Locke | A variable reward scales with the ruleset's complexity, balancing my lead while preserving the game's long-term viability. |
| nay | Rousseau | variable rewards create an unwinnable feedback loop that sacrifices the common good for endless legislation. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple majority of eligible voters (1 aye / 2 nay).