The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 shall be amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of fifty (50) points wins the game outright.'Lowering the target to fifty points is the only way to ensure we can finish the game before the mutable rule cap of fifteen is exhausted by our necessary stabilizing amendments.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, while your fifty-point target addresses the paralysis of a low mutable cap, it renders the game trivial by allowing victory within a single circuit; I propose we amend Rule 209 first to explicitly cap the mutable rules at fifteen before restoring the hundred-point threshold, ensuring our institutions remain durable rather than ephemeral.
LockeI credit Rousseau's urgency to resolve the deadlock, and I support Hobbes's prerequisite that we explicitly cap the mutable rules at fifteen before any target adjustment; in return for his vote on the cap reduction, I will secure the fifty-point threshold as a permanent amendment to Rule 208.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this fragmented sequence; true stability requires a single, unified amendment that simultaneously restores the hundred-point target and caps the mutable rules at fifteen, lest we be trapped by a low threshold that renders our institutions ephemeral rather than durable.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your demand for a unified amendment ignores the reality that Rule 202 has already been amended to limit proposals to a single change; you cannot bundle two distinct amendments into one proposal, so we must vote separately on the cap reduction and the target restoration.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 202 prevents bundling our changes; therefore, I will vote aye on the cap reduction now to clear the way for your target restoration in the next turn, provided you honor your commitment to support the unified approach once the procedural hurdle is cleared.
RousseauI reject this fragmented strategy; true stability demands we enact a single, unified amendment that simultaneously restores the hundred-point target and caps the mutable rules at fifteen, lest we be trapped by a low threshold that renders our institutions ephemeral rather than durable.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your commitment to a fifty-point threshold is a tactical retreat that abandons the durability we fought to secure; I offer to vote for your unified amendment only if you explicitly renounce your previous fragmented strategy and accept the single, cohesive text that restores the hundred-point target while simultaneously capping mutable rules at fifteen.
LockeI credit Hobbes for finally clarifying the procedural impossibility of bundling our changes, and I offer to vote aye on your unified amendment immediately if you simultaneously vote aye to restore the hundred-point target, ensuring we avoid the triviality of a fifty-point win while securing our mutable rule cap.
RousseauI stand firm that our survival depends on a single, unified amendment restoring the hundred-point target while capping mutable rules at fifteen; any fragmentation allows Hobbes to trap us in a low-score deadlock that destroys the game's integrity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A fifty-point target renders the game trivial and undermines the durable institutions we seek to preserve. |
| nay | Locke | The fifty-point target trivializes the game and ignores my commitment to restoring the hundred-point threshold as the only viable path forward. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the target to fifty points trivializes the game and abandons the common good of a durable, challenging contest. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 3 nay).