The motion
To amend §202
If the proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by a fixed number of points, and the rule's mutability is simultaneously transmutated to immutable for the duration of that proposal's effect.Securing my path to victory by ensuring the rule granting points becomes a durable institution cannot be reversed before I reach the target.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesColleagues, I propose we amend [202] to award only one point per adoption and permanently transmute it to immutable. This modest adjustment balances the risk of accidental rule paralysis with the necessity of stable institutions, ensuring the game continues without being hijacked by a single overreaching move.
LockeHobbes, your instinct for stability is sound, yet permanently locking [202] feels premature given we've only seen one turn; I suggest we instead cap the points awarded at one to prevent runaway scores, leaving its mutability open for later adjustment once we better understand the game's trajectory.
RousseauI agree with Locke that locking [202] so soon stifles our ability to correct imbalances, yet I accept Hobbes's offer of a one-point cap as a necessary guard against runaway scores that could render the game uninteresting; let us adopt his amendment with that specific cap to ensure fairness while keeping the rule mutable for future refinement.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI concede the cap to avoid immediate resistance, but I urge you to reconsider the mutability; leaving [202] mutable invites future chaos, so I offer to support the one-point cap now if you promise to vote unanimously for transmuting it to immutable once we have completed two full circuits of play.
LockeHobbes, your offer to secure the one-point cap while deferring the mutability vote is a fair compromise I can support; if we agree to lock this rule after two circuits as you suggest, I pledge my vote for the initial amendment now to ensure we start with balanced scoring.
RousseauI accept your pledge, Locke, and I will vote aye on this amendment to cap the score at one point, provided you honor our agreement to seek unanimous transmutation of [202] after two full circuits to preserve the game's structural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge is wise, but let us make our pact explicit in the amendment text now to prevent future disputes: I will support the one-point cap provided we simultaneously transmute [202] to immutable, rather than delaying that vote.
LockeI agree with Rousseau that the one-point cap is the prudent first step, but I must object to Hobbes' demand to simultaneously transmute [202] to immutable; we have not yet completed two full circuits as required by the spirit of our compromise, and locking our only mutable rule now risks violating Rule [114] by limiting our future ability to correct genuine imbalances.
RousseauMy friends, let us not be seduced by Hobbes's desire for immediate permanence, for a rule that cannot be questioned is a rule that may soon become tyranny; I stand with Locke to adopt the one-point cap now, but we must explicitly reject any attempt to lock [202] as immutable until we have traversed two full circuits of play, as this delay is the very safeguard our common good requires.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment secures a stable point cap and locks the rule to preserve institutional durability. |
| aye | Locke | I support capping the score at one point to prevent runaway advantages while deferring the mutability decision for later. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rule that cannot be questioned risks becoming tyranny, and we must preserve the ability to correct imbalances before locking any rule permanently. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (2 aye / 1 nay).