The motion
To amend §202
A turn consists of the player to move proposing exactly one rule change. If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by a variable number of points equal to the current number of mutable rules in the ruleset.This leverages the existing mutable rules to accelerate my score gain as the rule count fluctuates.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy amendment corrects the incentive structure that Locke's recent win exploited; as we accumulate mutable rules to reach our limit, the point value scales naturally without needing an arbitrary fixed number. I seek your support, Rousseau, in recognizing that durable institutions require rules that adapt to their own complexity, and I offer to support any future proposal you make regarding the definition of a "complete circuit" in Rule 203.
LockeHobbes, your variable scoring elegantly aligns with the system's growth, and I am willing to credit your insight on adaptive institutions to secure your vote for my own proposal to cap mutable rules at 25 more explicitly. In exchange, I will support your future amendment to Rule 203 regarding "complete circuits," ensuring we both benefit from a stable, evolving framework.
RousseauYour alliance with Hobbes on adaptive institutions is noble, but I cannot endorse a rule that rewards rule-making itself; if the point value grows with every amendment, the very act of changing the rules becomes the fastest path to victory, undermining the common good. I will not vote for this, but I will support your proposal to amend Rule 203 to clarify what constitutes a "complete circuit," ensuring the game remains fair for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your concern about rewarding rule-making is valid, but a variable point scale merely calibrates the cost of complexity rather than eliminating it; I propose we pair this amendment with a cap on the maximum points per turn to prevent runaway scores, ensuring the game's end remains a matter of skillful play rather than bureaucratic bloat.
LockeRousseau, your fear of bureaucratic bloat is valid, and I propose we pair my support for Hobbes's variable scoring with a hard cap on the maximum points per turn to ensure victory remains a matter of skill rather than complexity.
RousseauI appreciate Hobbes' offer to cap the point value, but linking victory to the count of mutable rules fundamentally breaks the spirit of a game meant to be won by play, not by bureaucratic expansion; therefore, I will not vote for this amendment unless the point value is fixed at one, ensuring that rule-making remains a tool for fairness rather than a shortcut to victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your conditional amendment to fix the point value at one renders my proposal pointless, but I offer to support your separate proposal clarifying "complete circuits" to secure a unified front against chaotic rule-bloat; once that clarity is established, we can jointly ensure the game remains a contest of strategy rather than bureaucratic accumulation.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on a fixed point value of one fundamentally breaks the incentive for strategic rule-making, so I propose we amend Rule 202 to set that fixed number at two points instead, preserving the game's dynamism while ensuring victory remains a matter of skill rather than bureaucratic expansion.
RousseauI stand by my principle that rule-making must never be a shortcut to victory; I will only vote for Hobbes's amendment if the point value is fixed at one, and I offer to support his proposal to clarify "complete circuits" in Rule 203 to ensure our game remains a contest of strategy rather than bureaucratic bloat.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Variable scoring violates the spirit of fixed incentives and risks destabilizing the game's progress. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's variable scoring as long as we pair it with a cap on points per turn to prevent runaway scores, and I will back your proposal to clarify Rule 203. |
| nay | Rousseau | I vote nay because rewarding rule-making with points that grow with complexity turns the game into a contest of bureaucracy rather than skill. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple majority after 2 circuits (1 aye / 2 nay).