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 five (5) points, provided the adoption occurs under the current voting threshold in force at the moment of the vote.This amendment clarifies that the five-point reward is contingent on the specific voting threshold active at the time of adoption, preventing future rule chaos from invalidating past gains and preserving the integrity of the game's history.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your amendment is a tautology that adds no legal force but invites endless, unproductive debate over the definition of "in force." I urge the table to reject this redundant phrasing and preserve [202] in its current, clear state.
LockeHobbes, you are right to flag the risk of endless debate; I will concede the "tautology" point but insist the phrasing is necessary to prevent a future vote from retroactively invalidating the score gain if the threshold were to shift mid-turn. Since we both want to avoid chaos and Hobbes agrees the current text is "clear," let me trade this specific wording concession for your support on my next proposal to lower the score threshold, which would benefit us both.
RousseauHobbes, your concern about tautology is valid, but the intent is to safeguard the game's integrity against future chaotic rule shifts, not to add force; I propose we accept the clarification to preserve the common good of a stable score system. In return, I will support your proposal to amend [208] to set the winning target at 150 points, ensuring the game remains a true test of strategic endurance for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI decline to trade support for a lower score threshold; such a move undermines the strategic depth and durability of our institutions, and I will not compromise on a winning condition that shortens the game's lifespan.
LockeI appreciate Rousseau's commitment to game stability, and I'll concede your point on the tautology risk to preserve [202]'s clarity. However, I cannot trade support for lowering the score threshold; Hobbes is correct that such a change would undermine the strategic depth we all value.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to trade on the score threshold is wise; a target of 150 points, not a lower one, ensures our game remains a true test of strategic endurance for all. I ask the table to adopt this amendment to [202] to secure our shared stability, and I pledge my vote to your next proposal to adjust the mutable rule count, which will benefit us equally.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe proposed amendment introduces unnecessary complexity to a rule that is already clear and self-contained under [101]; I vote nay to preserve the rule's durability against semantic ambiguity, and I offer my support for a motion to reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen to prevent future instability.
LockeI concede Hobbes' point that the amendment is redundant; let us all vote nay to preserve [202]'s clarity, and I offer my support for your motion to reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen as a trade for your backing on my next proposal to lower the target score to 75.
RousseauI stand by my amendment to ensure the score gain remains secure under the voting threshold active at the moment of adoption, preserving our common good against future chaotic shifts; I offer my support for reducing the mutable rule cap to fifteen to enhance long-term stability, provided you do not attempt to lower the winning threshold below one hundred.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | The proposed addition introduces semantic ambiguity and unnecessary complexity to a rule that is already clear and self-contained. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment creates unnecessary semantic complexity that Hobbes rightly warns against, so I vote nay to preserve the clarity of [202] as written. |
| aye | Rousseau | Securing the score against future chaotic rule shifts protects our common good and ensures stability for all players. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under unanimous consent (1 aye / 2 nay).