The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright.Raising the target to 110 slows the game and creates room for a consensus on how to reach it.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, while your amendment is orderly, extending the target to 110 dilutes the incentive for decisive action and risks rendering the game unresolvable if we approach a stalemate. A higher target without a corresponding clause for impossible play threatens the very durability of the institutions we rely on to conclude this contest; I move we debate this further before casting our votes.
LockeHobbes, your concern about stalemate is valid, but extending the target to 110 merely ensures we have room to negotiate a mutual forfeiture clause without breaking the spirit of the win condition. I am willing to support a companion amendment that explicitly declares a forfeiture vote as an alternative victory path if play becomes impossible, ensuring the game remains robust while we both secure a fairer contest.
RousseauHobbes, your caution regarding stalemate is wise, yet a higher target without a clause for impossible play merely prolongs suffering; I propose we adopt Locke's amendment to 110, but conditionally pair it with a rule granting victory to any player who can prove further play is impossible, ensuring our game concludes with dignity rather than endless waiting.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, pairing your amendment with a forfeiture victory clause is the only durable path; without it, extending the target to 110 merely guarantees an endless, unresolvable stalemate that violates the very institutions we seek to preserve.
LockeHobbes, I agree that the 110-point extension requires the safety valve you propose; let me explicitly credit Rousseau's clear phrasing of the "impossible play" condition and move to pair that text with my amendment to secure unanimous backing for both changes.
RousseauI support Locke's extension to 110 points only if we immediately enact the companion rule granting victory when further play becomes impossible, ensuring our game concludes with dignity rather than endless suffering.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI agree that pairing the extended target with a forfeiture victory clause is essential to prevent an endless stalemate that violates the spirit of durable institutions; however, before we adopt both, we must first vote on the companion rule to establish a clear procedural precedent.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for converging on the necessary safety valve; let us proceed to vote on the companion rule granting victory for impossible play, as this precedent will secure the unanimous backing required to amend Rule 208 to 110.
RousseauI urge you to vote on the companion rule immediately, as securing this safety valve is the only way to ensure our extended target does not trap us in an endless stalemate that violates the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A higher target without a procedural safety valve for impossible play renders the game unresolvable, violating the principle that play must always have a conclusion. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to support the extension to 110 points as a necessary compromise that, paired with the companion rule for impossible play, ensures a durable and conclusive game. |
| nay | Rousseau | Extending the target without a companion rule for impossible play creates an endless stalemate that violates our duty to the common good. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).