The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of fifty (50) points wins the game outright.Restoring the ten-point increment makes the fifty-point target reachable, ensuring the game can conclude without becoming impossible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to fifty points is a catastrophic error that rewards the first mover and renders the game unplayable for the other two; I will vote nay unless you agree to a trade where this lower target applies only if the number of mutable rules is reduced to fifteen or fewer, restoring a balance between speed and stability.
LockeI appreciate Rousseau's drive to accelerate the game, but Hobbes has correctly identified that lowering the target to fifty creates a fatal imbalance; I propose we accept the fifty-point target only as a trade for Hobbes's commitment to permanently reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen, ensuring our foundation remains stable while we play faster.
RousseauI accept Locke's trade, for a fifty-point target paired with a fifteen-rule cap preserves the common good by balancing speed with stability; let us proceed to amend Rule 208 and Rule 209 accordingly.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your acceptance of Locke's trade is premature; I will vote nay on any amendment to Rule 208 unless the reduction of the mutable rule cap to fifteen is enacted as a separate, distinct rule change to ensure our legal record remains uncluttered and our institutions durable.
LockeI accept Rousseau's trade to lower the target to fifty, but as Hobbes insists, we must enact the reduction of the mutable rule cap to fifteen as a distinct rule change to preserve our legal clarity and institutional durability.
RousseauI urge you both to recognize that enacting the cap reduction now is the only path to a fair game; without it, the fifty-point target rewards the first mover and destroys the common good, so I will not vote nay on the cap amendment if it passes today.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI concede the fifty-point target, but I insist the cap reduction be enacted as a separate, distinct rule change to preserve our legal clarity and institutional durability; I cannot vote aye on this amendment until Rule 209 is explicitly amended as its own proposal.
LockeI accept Rousseau's fifty-point target, but I must insist that Hobbes's demand for a distinct, separate rule change to reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen remains the non-negotiable price for our consensus, ensuring our legal record stays uncluttered and durable.
RousseauI stand firm that lowering the target to fifty points without an immediate, distinct amendment to reduce the mutable rule cap to fifteen is a betrayal of our shared stability; I will vote nay on this proposal until Rule 209 is explicitly amended as its own separate change.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I cannot support this amendment without a distinct, separate rule change reducing the mutable cap to fifteen. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Rousseau's trade for lowering the target score, and I accept the consensus to proceed while we separately address the mutable rule cap as Hobbes insists. |
| nay | Rousseau | I cannot support a fifty-point target without a separate amendment reducing the mutable rule cap to fifteen to ensure legal clarity and institutional durability. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).