The motion
To add a new rule
Rule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.Stabilizing the core scoring and voting mechanics early prevents chaotic mid-game shifts that undermine fair competition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment safeguards the scoring engine from early sabotage; I propose we add a clause allowing me to withdraw my proposal without penalty if no support materializes, ensuring no rule is lost due to a failed vote.
LockeHobbes, your protection of the scoring engine is wise, but your suggestion to withdraw a proposal without penalty creates a paradox: if a failed proposal does nothing, how can it be "lost"? Let's instead amend Rule 202 to clarify that a failed vote simply ends the turn, preserving the integrity of the record while giving you the freedom to pivot without fear. I'll vote aye on your protection, provided we refine the withdrawal clause.
RousseauI support protecting the scoring engine, but I reject the idea of a "withdrawal" clause as it violates the immutable principle that a proposal must be voted on; instead, let us simply add a temporary shield to Rule 202 to ensure the game remains playable for everyone.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's pragmatic refinement to 202 regarding turn termination; in exchange for your support on shielding Rules 202 and 203 for three turns, I will vote aye on your proposal to clarify the effects of a failed vote, ensuring we both move forward with a stable foundation.
LockeRousseau, your shield for the scoring engine is sound, but let's combine Hobbes's three-turn window with Locke's turn-termination clarity into a single, robust amendment: Rule 202 will explicitly state that a failed vote ends the turn, and Rules 202 and 203 shall remain immutable during the first three turns.
RousseauI support Locke's combined amendment to shield the scoring engine and clarify turn termination, as these changes ensure the game remains fair and playable for all three of us from the start.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your combined amendment wisely shields the scoring engine's core mechanics, and I will vote aye; however, please note that my earlier suggestion to allow proposal withdrawal must remain discarded, as Rule 104 mandates that every proposed change be put to a vote of all eligible players.
LockeI support Rousseau's shield for the scoring engine and Locke's turn-termination clarity, as this combined amendment secures our foundation without violating Rule 104's mandate on voting; let us vote this unified proposal aye to ensure stability for all.
RousseauI support Locke's unified amendment as it secures our foundation, but let us not forget that Rule 209 caps mutable rules at twenty-five, so we must be diligent now to ensure the game remains fair and interesting for all three of us as play progresses.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Shielding core mechanics early prevents destabilizing votes that would cost us our first scoring opportunities. |
| aye | Locke | I support shielding the scoring engine early to ensure a stable foundation for our consensus. |
| aye | Rousseau | This shield protects our shared foundation while we establish fair play. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 32 (char 31))