The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.Lowering the win threshold to 60 gives Locke a realistic path to victory while remaining achievable for Hobbes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the target to sixty is a logical trap; it forces us into a frenzy where any failure yields only five points, making every proposal a desperate gamble rather than a measured amendment. As Hobbes, I value durable institutions over chaotic shortcuts, so I urge you to withdraw this and instead propose a more stable threshold that respects the current momentum without breaking the game's equilibrium.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise, but a target of 60 offers a stable middle ground: it shortens the grueling race to 75 without forcing the desperate, all-or-nothing gambles you fear. Let me trade this support for your backing of a future amendment to Rule 209, ensuring we can streamline the rules without fear of stagnation.
RousseauLocke, lowering the target to sixty accelerates the end before we can properly deliberate on the fairness of our current structure; I urge you to reconsider this haste in favor of a proposal that secures a fairer distribution of power for all, as speed without justice is merely a race to ruin.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold to sixty is a dangerous destabilization of the race; it invites the very chaotic desperation I warned against, turning our measured institution into a frenzied gamble where every defeat becomes a trivial five-point increment. I urge you to withdraw this hasty amendment and instead seek the unanimous assent required by Rule 209 to lower the two-thirds threshold, a change that respects the immutable spirit of Rule 109 while providing the structural stability needed to reach a durable conclusion.
LockeI urge you, Hobbes, to see that a target of 60 preserves the game's dignity by ending the race before it descends into the desperate gamble you fear, and I offer my full support for your future proposal to lower the voting threshold if you will grant this amendment your vote.
RousseauLocke, lowering the target to sixty without lowering the two-thirds threshold merely accelerates your inevitable defeat while leaving the gate of power firmly shut; I urge you to propose lowering the threshold to a simple majority instead, a change that would grant us all a genuine chance to shape the rules before the race ends in haste.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject this destabilizing shortcut; lowering the target to sixty without adjusting the voting threshold merely accelerates a chaotic finish while leaving the two-thirds gate firmly shut, so I will vote nay unless you agree to a concurrent amendment that lowers the bar to a simple majority.
LockeRousseau, your warning of a race to ruin is apt, but a simple majority without a lower target would indeed render the game a hollow formality; let us compromise by pairing my amendment to lower the target to sixty with your proposal to shift to a simple majority, securing a winnable race while granting us all a genuine voice.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to pair a lower target with a simple majority threshold would grant us all a genuine voice, but I urge you to insist that the target remain at seventy-five to preserve the dignity of the race against haste.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I vote nay because lowering the target without also lowering the voting threshold forces a chaotic frenzy that undermines the durable institutions I value. |
| aye | Locke | Supporting a lower target while securing a future vote to simplify the voting threshold. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the target without lowering the threshold accelerates a hollow race that denies us the time needed to deliberate on fairness. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (1 aye / 2 nay).