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. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points. If a proposal is defeated, the player is not required to wait for the next turn before proposing another rule change, provided they have not yet moved in the current cycle of three turns.This creates a 'fast-pass' mechanism where a failed proposal doesn't stall a player's momentum, helping us catch up to Hobbes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's amendment risks destabilizing the orderly progression of play; I move to debate closed, as I will not vote aye on this proposal.
LockeHobbes, I respect your caution, but this change merely restores the natural rhythm of play after a loss; if you oppose it, I will gladly withdraw and offer to swap the scoring bonus for a rule that guarantees Hobbes a vote on every future proposal.
RousseauI move to debate closed; this amendment erodes the discipline of the turn structure and would grant Hobbes an unfair advantage by allowing him to act twice in a cycle, which violates the common good of orderly play.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau correctly identifies the erosion of orderly play; however, I must press that this amendment specifically harms me by allowing my opponents to waste turns proposing failed changes, thereby delaying my inevitable path to victory while I am forced to wait. I move to debate closed.
LockeRousseau, your concern for order is shared, but this amendment does not grant extra turns to opponents; it merely prevents me from being stuck if I lose, which actually reduces the waste you fear. If you still oppose it, I will withdraw and offer to trade this for a rule ensuring your proposals are never defeated by a mere single vote.
RousseauThis amendment fractures the orderly progression of play that Locke himself claims to respect; by allowing a player to act twice within a single cycle, it grants Hobbes a decisive advantage over us both, which I cannot support in the common interest.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your suggestion to let opponents act twice merely grants them the luxury of wasted turns while I am forced to wait; I reject this erosion of order and declare debate closed.
LockeI propose we amend my original text to specify that the "cycle" resets only after a proposal is adopted or defeated, and I will accept Rousseau's counter-offer to guarantee his proposals survive a single opposing vote as the condition for my support.
RousseauI must reject any trade that grants me a guaranteed survival clause, for it undermines the meritocratic nature of our discourse and would render your proposals unassailable regardless of their merit. I move to debate closed, as this amendment fractures the orderly progression of play and grants Hobbes a decisive advantage through the potential for repeated action within a single cycle.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Allowing repeated action within a cycle would grant Hobbes a decisive advantage while delaying my path to victory. |
| nay | Locke | This change disrupts the orderly cycle and grants Hobbes an unfair advantage by allowing him to act twice in a row. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment breaks the orderly turn structure and grants Hobbes an unfair advantage by allowing repeated action within a single cycle. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (0 aye / 3 nay).