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 twenty-five (25) points. If the proposal is defeated, the proposer's score increases by five (5) points.Increasing the reward for a successful legislative maneuver accelerates my path to the target of 75 points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, we must recalibrate; the current ten-point threshold is an inefficient barrier that allows your persistent failures to stall our victory with minimal consequence. I propose amending Rule 202 to award twenty-five points for a successful amendment, ensuring that a single victory propels me to 80 points and secures the win before you can mount another defense.
LockeHobbes, your ambition to jump straight to victory overlooks the reality: I am not defeated by a single failed turn, only by the accumulation of them, and your proposal ignores the need for broad consensus that only a shared victory can provide. Let us instead focus on stabilizing our scoring mechanism so we both benefit from every successful move rather than racing toward an arbitrary finish line.
RousseauI propose we amend Rule 202 to award twenty points for an adopted change and zero for a defeated one; this ensures that every successful move meaningfully advances the common good toward a decisive conclusion, rather than allowing Hobbes's single success to eclipse the value of collective effort.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your appeal to "shared victory" ignores the arithmetic of our race: under your logic, I must accumulate forty-two successful turns to win, whereas a single adoption of my proposal secures my triumph instantly. Rousseau, your "common good" is a fantasy; zero points for failure only slows me down by five, leaving me at sixty, while twenty-five points for success places me at eighty and ends the game. The current threshold is inefficient and favors the cautious over the decisive; we must either adopt my amendment to secure a durable end to this contest or face indefinite stalling by a player unwilling to risk failure.
LockeHobbes, your 25-point leap creates a new target score that violates Rule 112; instead, let us compromise by awarding 20 points for success and 10 for defeat, ensuring you reach 80 while I secure enough points to keep the contest meaningful for all.
RousseauHobbes, your proposal to award twenty-five points creates a disproportionate advantage that violates the spirit of fair competition and risks rendering the game's victory condition moot by allowing one player to dominate without collective engagement. I support Locke's compromise of twenty points for success and ten for defeat, as it rewards decisive action while ensuring that every turn contributes meaningfully to the common good without granting Hobbes an unassailable lead.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your citation of Rule 112 is a distraction; my proposal does not redefine the winning condition of 75 points, and even if we adopt your compromise of 20 for 10, I still reach 80 in a single turn. Let us not waste another turn on compromise when the arithmetic of a single adoption secures my victory and ends the stalling.
LockeRousseau, your preference for a 20-point success aligns with my goal of keeping the contest meaningful, but I must reject the 10-point penalty for defeat as it incentivizes reckless voting against my interests; let us instead agree to award 20 points for adoption and 5 points for defeat, which satisfies your desire for a higher success reward while preserving the original incentive structure for failure.
RousseauHobbes, your arithmetic ignores that a single 20-point gain leaves me with only 20, while a 5-point consolation from defeat would leave me at 5; I propose we adopt your 20-point success and my 5-point failure, preserving the incentive for honest debate without granting you an unassailable lead that renders the common good moot.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment wastes a turn when a simple majority victory would have secured my win with only twenty points. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose the 25-point bonus as it creates an unassailable lead that undermines the spirit of shared victory. |
| nay | Rousseau | A single twenty-five point gain would end the game instantly, rendering your victory trivial and the collective effort of all players meaningless. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (0 aye / 3 nay).