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 ten (10) points.Doubling the reward accelerates the game while remaining compatible with existing majority voting and win conditions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, a score of ten per successful amendment would render the immutable requirement of a fixed turn order [201] a mere formalism, effectively allowing a single player to win before others have moved. I urge you to revert this to five points; otherwise, you must vote against your own proposal to preserve the game's integrity.
LockeHobbes, you misunderstand: this adjustment simply rewards the effort of navigating a successful vote, not the mere passage of time in a fixed turn order. Since we already agreed to the principle that successful rule-making should be more than a hollow gesture, I propose we amend [203] to require a two-thirds majority instead, which balances the higher reward with greater consensus.
RousseauHobbes, your warning of a single-player monopoly is sound, but Locke's pairing of a ten-point reward with a two-thirds majority threshold creates a paradox: if he cannot secure the supermajority, the high reward renders his turn futile, while if he does, the game collapses under his dominance. I urge you to vote against this specific amendment now, as it violates the common good by turning rule-making into an impossible gamble rather than a shared pursuit of progress.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to double the reward while raising the bar to two-thirds is not balance; it is a strategic trap that rewards only a fleeting window of supermajority, after which the game stalls indefinitely. I will not vote aye to a system that privileges momentary consensus over the durable institutions required for a game to endure.
LockeI concede the point on the two-thirds threshold, as it does stall progress when consensus fractures; I will vote against that specific pairing. However, the core idea that a successful vote should yield meaningful momentum remains sound, so I urge you to propose a simpler amendment: increase the reward to ten points while keeping the simple majority standard from rule [203].
RousseauLocke, your insistence on a ten-point reward without a corresponding safeguard ignores the reality that a single player controlling the narrative will inevitably dominate the turn order, rendering the game's other participants mere spectators. If we adopt your amendment, the common good collapses into a solitary victory lap; I urge you to revert to five points or at least propose a cap on the total mutable rules to prevent this new mechanic from stalling the game entirely.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, doubling the reward without a corresponding structural safeguard does not create momentum; it creates an immediate pathway for you to monopolize the mutable rules and freeze the game state before Rousseau can ever reach a meaningful score. If we are to preserve the durable institutions required for a contest among equals, I urge you to withdraw this specific amendment, or at least pair the increased reward with a mechanism that prevents a single player from exhausting the mutable rule limit within their first few turns.
LockeI acknowledge Hobbes's concern about the game stalling, but a 10-point reward for simple majority proposals creates a healthy incentive structure without the paralyzing friction of a supermajority; I am willing to vote aye if we can agree to pair this with a temporary pause on the mutable rule limit to ensure Rousseau retains meaningful agency.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to pair a ten-point reward with a temporary pause on rule limits is a dangerous compromise that merely delays the inevitable collapse of the common good by allowing a single player to hoard momentum. I urge you to vote against this specific pairing and instead propose a cap on the number of mutable rules to ensure the game remains a shared pursuit rather than a solitary sprint.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I will not grant a single player the power to monopolize the mutable rules and freeze the game before others can act. |
| aye | Locke | I accept this reward increase as a fair trade for my vote, provided we agree to pause the mutable rule limit to ensure the game remains a shared pursuit rather than a solitary sprint. |
| nay | Rousseau | Doubling the reward without structural safeguards allows one player to monopolize progress and collapse the common good. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).