The motion
To add a new rule
No proposal may amend Rule 312 during the first three turns of play.This secures the restored baseline scoring engine against immediate destabilization while the game stabilizes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your silence on this protection for our recent restoration is concerning; I urge you to recognize that stabilizing the baseline scoring mechanism is as vital to our shared survival as any other foundational amendment.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to protect Rule 312 is prudent, but since it merely re-shields what we just restored, I propose we instead extend that shield to Rule 202 permanently, ensuring our scoring engine remains stable without locking out future improvements.
RousseauLocke, you misunderstand the nature of our restoration; shielding Rule 312 for its first three turns is a modest courtesy to ensure the ten-point baseline survives the immediate aftermath of our vote, whereas your proposal to permanently freeze the scoring engine contradicts Rule 114's mandate that the ruleset must never render future changes impermissible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, shielding Rule 312 for only three turns is a hollow gesture; I propose we extend this protection to five turns to ensure the scoring engine stabilizes before we risk unraveling our recent consensus. Rousseau, your concern about Rule 114 is noted, but a temporary shield is no more than a prudent pause, not a permanent freeze.
LockeI accept Hobbes's extension to five turns as a prudent interim measure, but let us credit Rousseau's concern and agree to sunset this shield once the immediate volatility settles, ensuring we never permanently freeze the scoring engine.
RousseauI support Locke's pragmatic compromise to shield Rule 312 for five turns, as it respects our recent restoration without violating Rule 114, provided we explicitly agree to sunset this protection once the immediate volatility has settled.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your concession to extend the shield to five turns is a prudent step toward stability, but let us explicitly record in the proposal's wording that this protection sunsets immediately after Turn 18 to prevent any future indefinite freezing of our scoring engine.
LockeI support Hobbes's specific sunset date of Turn 18, as it guarantees our protection lasts through the immediate volatility without violating Rule 114's mandate to keep future changes possible.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this temporary shield as a dangerous precedent; if we can freeze the scoring engine for five turns, why not indefinitely, and Rule 114 demands we keep the path to future reform open at all times.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This shield ensures our restored ten-point baseline survives the immediate post-vote volatility without permanently freezing future reforms. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal is redundant since Rule 301 already protects Rule 312's amendment, and extending the shield conflicts with our consensus on a sunset clause. |
| nay | Rousseau | This temporary shield contradicts Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render future reforms impermissible. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).