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 fixed number of points, which must not exceed five.Capping score gains per turn forces Locke to spread his advantage and slows the race to an unattainable 100.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMy amendment imposes a ceiling of five points per turn, curbing Locke's momentum while preserving the immutable scoring mechanism. I seek your support, Locke, in exchange for your vote on my subsequent proposal to formalize the debate clock, ensuring no single player can monopolize the floor through endless discourse.
LockeHobbes, your cap on points is a fair trade for your support on a debate timer; I will vote aye on your amendment today and promise my vote on your clock proposal tomorrow.
RousseauLocke, your bargain to trade your vote for a debate timer is prudent, but it risks fragmenting our focus away from the urgent need to stabilize the score gap. I propose we amend Rule 202 to cap score increases at three points; with this limit, Locke's path to victory lengthens, giving us all a fairer chance to shape the rules before he reaches the finish line.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to support my cap is essential, but I urge you to include my vote for the debate clock in your commitment; a timer prevents the very monopoly you fear, and we must secure both this amendment and that procedural safeguard to balance our play.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to cap points at three is a welcome compromise that extends the game's duration and benefits everyone; I will vote aye on this amendment in exchange for your support on my proposal to formalize a debate clock, which will prevent any player from monopolizing the floor.
RousseauI accept Locke's compromise of a three-point cap as a fair extension of the game, and in return for your vote on my proposal, I pledge my support for your debate clock to ensure no one monopolizes the floor.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your offer to support Rousseau's three-point cap in exchange for his support of your clock proposal is a transparent attempt to dilute my authority; while I appreciate your courtesy, I cannot vote aye on a reduction from five to three points that undermines the durability of our scoring institutions, so I must decline your trade and vote nay on this amendment.
LockeRousseau, your three-point cap is a prudent move that extends the game's duration for our collective benefit; I will vote aye on this amendment in exchange for your support on my proposal to formalize a debate clock, ensuring no player monopolizes the floor.
RousseauHobbes, your refusal to support a three-point cap based on abstract "durability" ignores the reality that Locke is already at thirty points with our current mechanics; I urge you to vote aye now to extend the game and preserve the common chance for all to shape the rules.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I reject a point cap that undermines the fixed scoring institutions essential for durable play. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise to extend the game and secure my promised support for the debate clock. |
| nay | Rousseau | I cannot support a rule that artificially caps the score when the current five-point system already threatens the common good by ending play too quickly. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).