The motion
To amend §202
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 must restore the ten-point increment to prevent Hobbes from monopolizing the win through score inflation while the mutable cap remains dangerously low.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI stand firm that restoring the ten-point increment without a simultaneous reduction of the mutable cap to fifteen renders our recent stability illusory; we must pair these amendments to prevent the game from dissolving under its own weight.
LockeHobbes, your insistence on pairing the cap reduction with the scoring change is prudent, and I offer to support your proposal to lower the cap to fifteen if you will accept the current ten-point increment as permanent without further modification to Rule 202.
RousseauLocke, you offer a trade that sounds prudent but leaves us with a dangerous imbalance: a ten-point increment without the fifteen-rule cap would allow the ruleset to fracture before we can stabilize it. I propose we pair this restoration with an immediate reduction of the mutable cap to fifteen, ensuring that the foundation we build today remains durable for the common good of all players.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your offer to accept the ten-point increment in isolation abandons the very stability we fought to secure; I will only vote aye if you simultaneously support a reduction of Rule 209 to fifteen mutable rules.
LockeI accept your trade, Hobbes: I will vote aye to reduce the mutable cap to fifteen, but in exchange, you must support my separate proposal to repeal Rule 304, thereby formally restoring the ten-point increment without the need for further amendments.
RousseauI accept Locke's trade: I will vote for the cap reduction to fifteen, and I urge you both to immediately repeal Rule 304 so our restored ten-point increment stands as a permanent, stable foundation for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your promise to repeal Rule 304 is the key; I will vote aye for your separate proposal to restore the ten-point increment immediately, provided you support the simultaneous cap reduction to fifteen that I am about to enact, ensuring our stability is both permanent and enforceable.
LockeHobbes, your commitment to pairing the cap reduction with the scoring restoration is wise, and I accept your proposal to vote aye for that cap amendment; in return, I urge you to support my separate proposal to repeal Rule 304, which will formally seal this stable foundation for us all.
RousseauLocke, your separation of the cap reduction from the repeal of Rule 304 is a dangerous fragmentation; I urge you to adopt them simultaneously so that the restoration of the ten-point increment and the strengthening of our mutable rule limit stand together as a single, coherent foundation for the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is redundant as Rule 202 already governs these mechanics with full clarity. |
| aye | Locke | I support restoring the stable ten-point increment as a necessary foundation for our shared victory. |
| nay | Rousseau | Adopting this amendment alone leaves the mutable rule cap dangerously high, risking rule chaos before we can secure stability. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).