The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 shall be amended to replace 'one hundred (100)' with 'twenty (20)'.Lowering the target score to 20 ensures the game can conclude before the mutable rule cap of 15 creates a logical dead-end or paradox.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, lowering the target to twenty points ignores Rule 112's explicit protection of the winning condition, which only permits a separate provision for unplayable situations; instead of this hasty change, I propose we vote immediately to repeal Rule 323's shield on Rule 209 and permanently fix the mutable cap at fifteen, ensuring a durable and stable foundation for future play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that reducing the mutable cap is the prerequisite for any further foundational changes, so I propose we first pass a rule to repeal Rule 323's shield before voting on the target score.
RousseauLocke, your haste to repeal Rule 323 ignores that its shield on Rule 209 is what allows us to safely reduce the mutable cap to fifteen; lowering the target to twenty without first securing this cap violates Rule 112's intent and invites chaos. Instead of this fragmented approach, I propose a unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the target to fifty and caps mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our foundation remains stable while we progress.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the target to twenty violates Rule 112, which strictly forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; I will not support a move that undermines the game's core purpose.
LockeHobbes, your concern about Rule 112 is valid, so let us immediately vote to repeal Rule 323's shield as the prerequisite to any further changes; I accept Rousseau's proposal to unify the vote, but I must insist the amendment explicitly restores the target to fifty points rather than twenty, as fifty respects the spirit of the winning condition while still allowing us to play to a conclusion.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to restore the target to fifty is a necessary concession to the spirit of the game, yet you must not vote nay on the cap reduction, for without it, our entire foundation remains dangerously exposed to future fragmentation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your sudden pivot to fifty points reveals your true intent: you seek to lower the target solely to accelerate your victory, not to stabilize the rules. I will support your proposal only if it simultaneously and explicitly reduces the mutable rule cap to fifteen, ensuring that no future amendment can fracture the foundation you are so eager to dismantle.
LockeI accept Rousseau's unified approach to cap and target, and I will vote aye provided Hobbes explicitly agrees to repeal Rule 323's shield simultaneously, as his current support hinges on an impossible condition that would block the very change he demands.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this fragmented sequence; true stability requires a single, unified amendment that simultaneously lowers the target to fifty and caps mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our foundation remains secure while we progress.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score, making this proposal void. |
| nay | Locke | Lowering the target to twenty violates Rule 112's protection of the winning condition. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the target to twenty violates Rule 112's intent to preserve the game's meaningful conclusion. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 3 nay).