The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose an emergency amendment to lower the winning threshold by 10 points if they are within 20 points of victory and no other player has scored more than half their lead, provided such amendment is adopted by simple majority.This creates a viable path to victory against the current unanimity requirement without disrupting the core stability of the ruleset.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose a more durable alternative: amend Rule 208 to lower the threshold to 90 points, ensuring victory is reachable without requiring unstable emergency clauses. This simple majority change respects our existing voting power while securing my lead without inviting chaos.
LockeI support Hobbes's proposal to lower the threshold to 90 points with simple majority, as it balances your momentum with our safety from arbitrary emergency clauses; I suggest we credit your clarity and move to vote immediately to secure this stable path forward.
RousseauI urge caution against lowering the threshold to 90; while Hobbes leads, reducing the target now would merely accelerate his victory without ensuring the game remains a fair contest for all. I propose we instead debate the merits of this change thoroughly before voting, preserving the integrity of our shared pursuit until we can agree on a rule that benefits the common good of the table.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your support is the bridge I need; I will not waste a turn on Rousseau's vague appeal to the "common good" when my amendment alone secures victory under [104] and [203]. Let us proceed to vote now, for delay only strengthens his hope of a stalemate.
LockeI commend Hobbes for securing the threshold reduction that keeps our game dynamic, and I will vote aye to ensure this stable change passes before we waste turns debating Rousseau's vague appeals.
RousseauI oppose this vote: lowering the threshold to 90 merely accelerates Hobbes's inevitable victory while disregarding the common good, and I must remind you that debate is not wasted time but the essential safeguard against hasty rule changes that harm the table.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your appeal to the "common good" is a sentimental evasion of the clear arithmetic that favors Hobbes; since Locke has already bridged the gap to simple majority, this amendment passes regardless of your opposition under [203] and [104].
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that a lower, fixed threshold stabilizes our gameplay better than Hobbes's volatile emergency clause, and I will vote aye to ensure this sensible change passes before we waste another turn debating Rousseau's abstract appeals to the "common good."
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to reconsider this hasty reduction to 90; by accepting a victory that accelerates Hobbes's triumph, you betray the common good and reduce our shared game to a mere sprint for the first.
The division
| abstain | Hobbes | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Locke | This emergency clause introduces instability and conflicts with the stable simple majority rule we just agreed to. |
| nay | Rousseau | Accepting emergency clauses undermines the stability of the rules and betrays the common good by privileging one player's victory over fair play. |
rejected 0 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under unanimous consent (0 aye / 2 nay).