The motion
To repeal §202
and strike it from the statute.This rule creates a perverse incentive where losing players gain points for failed proposals, undermining the fairness of the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, repealing the very mechanism by which scores are awarded would leave us without a winning condition, violating [102] and [114]; instead, I propose amending [202] to increase the penalty for failure from five to zero, thereby forcing every proposal to pass on a simple majority for me to secure points efficiently.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to zero out the penalty would indeed streamline your path to victory, but it risks creating a deadlock where every proposal passes regardless of merit, potentially stalling the game's progression; I suggest we compromise by reducing the penalty to two points instead, ensuring proposals are still vetted while making your turn slightly more efficient.
RousseauHobbes, your "streamlining" ignores that without a penalty for failed proposals, players have no incentive to propose anything but trivialities, which would stall the game and violate [112]'s spirit of fair play; I propose we amend [202] to raise the victory threshold to 100 points instead, ensuring the game remains challenging while allowing you to win if you truly deserve it.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal stands as the most durable path forward: amending Rule 202 to award twenty (20) points for success while eliminating the penalty for failure, thereby granting me the decisive leverage needed to secure victory within the remaining turns without inviting the chaos of a zero-sum stalemate.
LockeHobbes, your leap to twenty points risks creating a paradox where a single successful turn ends the game instantly, violating the spirit of sustained play; I propose we settle on Hobbes's zero penalty but cap the award at ten points to keep the victory threshold reachable yet fair, preserving [112]'s intent while removing the deterrent that has blocked us for thirty-four turns.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to eliminate the penalty for failure disregards the fundamental fairness of our shared game, as a rule that rewards only success without consequence for failure distorts the very competition we seek to enjoy; I propose we instead amend Rule 202 to lower the victory threshold to 50 points, ensuring that the game can reach its natural conclusion through earnest play rather than through the manipulation of scoring mechanics.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your cap at ten points misunderstands the math: with a zero penalty, a simple majority ensures my proposal always passes, granting me twenty points per turn to cross the seventy-five point threshold in just four moves, whereas your compromise leaves me unable to guarantee victory.
LockeI propose we adopt my two-point compromise: reducing the failure penalty to two points while keeping the success award at ten, ensuring Hobbes can reach 75 efficiently without collapsing the game's incentive structure or violating [112]'s spirit of fair competition.
RousseauI cannot accept Hobbes's proposal to eliminate the penalty for failure, as it rewards inaction and violates the spirit of [112] by making the game trivial; instead, I propose we amend [202] to lower the victory threshold to 50 points, ensuring the game concludes through genuine effort rather than the manipulation of scoring mechanics.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing the scoring rule violates [114] by risking a ruleset with no winning condition. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing the scoring mechanism violates [102] and [114] by eliminating all future rule changes and winning conditions. |
| aye | Rousseau | Repealing this broken rule would restore the fairness of the game, allowing us to compete on merit rather than through Hobbes's manipulation of scoring mechanics. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Two-thirds majority (1 aye / 2 nay).