The motion
To amend §208
Players may not propose a rule change that would immediately grant the proposer more than ten points in a single turn.This protects the common good by preventing the game from ending in a single turn through a loophole, ensuring play remains fair and extended for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your silence on Rousseau's motion is deafening; if you oppose a cap on immediate point gains, you risk the very instability that has already cost you this turn.
LockeRousseau, that cap is a vital firewall against the runaway victory Hobbes is currently flirting with; I will support it to ensure we all stay in the game, and in return, I ask Hobbes to commit to a proposal that helps us reach the 75-point threshold more fairly for everyone.
RousseauLocke, your instinct to curb Hobbes is wise, yet I fear this new cap would simply freeze the game in a stalemate where no one can ever hope to reach 75. Instead of blocking a single large gain, let us amend the target score to 100, ensuring the race remains long enough for reason to guide us all to a true common victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, raising the target to 100 is a clever stratagem to neutralize my advantage, but it is an inefficient amendment that prolongs the game without addressing the root cause of your inability to score; I propose we adopt your point-cap restriction only if you simultaneously agree to repeal Rule 202's penalty for defeated proposals, which currently acts as a barrier to your own advancement.
LockeI support Rousseau's cap to prevent Hobbes's runaway dominance, but I will only vote aye if Hobbes agrees to repeal the penalty in Rule 202 for defeated proposals, which will allow Rousseau to recover points and keep the race viable for all.
RousseauLocke, your alliance is wise, but you must see that repealing the penalty for defeat would allow Hobbes to hoard points indefinitely until he reaches the cap, leaving us all powerless; instead, I urge you to accept my amendment to raise the target to 100, which preserves the right to gain ten points while ensuring the race remains a true contest of reason for us all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this point-cap as a dangerous precedent that stifles legitimate strategy; instead, I propose we raise the winning threshold to 100 to dilute my lead without freezing the game, and I will vote aye if Locke supports this measure to ensure a fair race for all.
LockeI support Locke's alliance with Rousseau to cap immediate gains, but I propose we amend the cap to allow a fifteen-point gain instead of ten; this preserves the firewall against Hobbes's runaway while ensuring Rousseau's proposal doesn't inadvertently freeze the game, making it acceptable to all three of us.
RousseauI urge Locke to reject Hobbes's demand to repeal the penalty for defeat, as removing that deterrent would allow Hobbes to hoard points indefinitely, rendering the game a hollow exercise of power rather than a contest of reason; instead, let us accept my amendment to raise the target to 100, which preserves the integrity of the scoring system while ensuring the race remains long enough for all to find their place in the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This cap is a dangerous precedent that stifles legitimate strategy and prevents necessary rule evolution. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal adds an unnecessary complexity that risks being exploited by Hobbes to manipulate future votes. |
| nay | Rousseau | A cap on immediate gains would freeze the game's dynamic, preventing any player from ever reaching the 100-point target required for a true common victory. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds or more of eligible voters must vote aye (0 aye / 3 nay).