The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change proposing to amend or repeal Rule 208 must carry the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, regardless of the current voting threshold.Protecting the win condition from being gamed ensures the game remains playable and fair for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment is prudent and aligns with my desire for stable institutions; I move that we debate this proposal in good faith before any vote.
LockeI support Hobbes's call for good faith debate; by locking Rule 208's alteration behind unanimity, we create a stable floor for scoring that allows us to build trust before any future major shifts in voting thresholds.
RousseauI agree that the stability of the winning condition benefits all, for a game without a clear end is a tragedy; thus, I offer to support this amendment if we can also agree that Rule 209's limit of 25 mutable rules should never be increased, lest the table become cluttered and unfair.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI concur with the amendment to shield the winning condition, yet I propose we explicitly bind any future attempt to repeal Rule 209 to unanimity as well; a cluttered rulebook undermines the very stability we seek, and locking that limit ensures our institutions endure without unnecessary amendment.
LockeHobbes, I agree that stabilizing both Rule 208 and Rule 209 creates a robust foundation for our game; let us proceed to a vote on this dual protection to secure a reliable path toward victory for all.
RousseauI accept the protection of the winning condition, but I must insist that Rule 209's limit be elevated to the immutable 100s; a mutable cap on rule creation is itself a fragile institution that invites future destabilization, and only an immutable foundation ensures the common good remains secure.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject elevating Rule 209 to the immutable 100s, as preserving a mutable cap allows us to adapt our institutions pragmatically when clutter threatens our ability to play; let us instead adopt only the protection for Rule 208 to secure our victory condition without freezing our capacity to manage rulebook growth.
LockeI propose we compromise by making the protection of Rule 209's limit conditional: it remains mutable but requires unanimous consent for any increase, satisfying Hobbes's pragmatism while securing Rousseau's desire for a high barrier against clutter.
RousseauI accept Locke's compromise on Rule 209, but I must insist that any future amendment to the voting threshold in Rule 203 also requires unanimous assent, preventing a majority from trapping us in an unplayable stalemate.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment secures our victory condition against majority whims without freezing the mutable system. |
| aye | Locke | This protects the scoring stability we all need while allowing other rules to evolve. |
| aye | Rousseau | Protecting the winning condition ensures the game remains meaningful and fair for all players. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Locke Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
A rule change proposing to amend or repeal Rule 208 must carry the unanimous assent of all eligible voters, regardless of the current voting threshold.
Rule 208 is a mutable rule (numbered in the 200s), so the newly adopted rule correctly imposes a unanimous voting threshold for its amendment or repeal, and Locke's score increases by the fixed number of points defined in Rule 202.