The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 shall be amended to read: '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 ten (10) points.'I restore the ten-point increment to ensure the scoring engine functions equitably for all players moving forward.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to reset Rule 202 to a ten-point increment is a strategic retreat that ignores the clear mandate of our recent history; I urge you to abandon this regression and instead consider amending Rule 209 to a cap of fifteen mutable rules, a moderate measure that strengthens our institutional stability without undermining the twenty-point engine we have already secured.
LockeRousseau, restoring the ten-point increment would erase the progress of our recent consensus on Rule 304, but I am willing to credit Hobbes's insight on stability if we pair that restoration with a hard cap of fifteen mutable rules to prevent future bloat.
RousseauI cannot accept this regression; restoring ten points erases the strategic clarity we built, but I will support your trade to cap mutable rules at fifteen if you agree to leave the twenty-point increment intact as the permanent standard for future turns.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI support Locke's proposal to cap mutable rules at fifteen, provided this amendment stands as a standalone measure that does not retroactively alter the established twenty-point increment of Rule 202.
LockeRousseau, I accept your condition to leave the twenty-point increment intact, as this preserves our hard-won momentum while pairing the rule cap with the restoration of the ten-point baseline creates a stable foundation for all future turns.
RousseauI stand firm against any reduction of the mutable rule cap that does not first include an explicit restoration of the ten-point increment to Rule 202, as preserving the common good requires balancing scoring incentives with legislative stability.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your concession to restore the ten-point baseline is a fatal error that undermines the strategic clarity of Rule 304; I urge you to reject this regression and vote against this proposal to preserve the twenty-point increment we have secured.
LockeHobbes, your alarm at the mere mention of restoring the ten-point baseline ignores the logical necessity of pairing it with a fifteen-rule cap to prevent future bloat; I propose we vote now to adopt Rule 212 as a standalone amendment that caps mutable rules at fifteen, preserving our twenty-point momentum while establishing the stability Rousseau rightly demands.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to adopt Rule 212 as a standalone cap of fifteen rules without explicitly restoring the ten-point increment in the same motion violates the very stability you claim to seek; I will not vote for a rule that leaves the twenty-point engine active while pretending to balance the system, unless the amendment to Rule 202 and the cap to Rule 209 are enacted together as a single, coherent whole.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Restoring Rule 202 to ten points prevents the system from collapsing under its own weight while I secure a fifteen-rule cap. |
| aye | Locke | This restoration of the ten-point increment, paired with the upcoming cap on mutable rules, secures the stability we all need while accepting the cost to preserve our consensus foundation. |
| aye | Rousseau | Restoring the ten-point increment preserves the strategic clarity and common good we have built. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §312 Turn 12 · Proposal §312 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 shall be amended to read: '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 ten (10) points.'
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 20 (char 19))