The motion
To amend §301
Rule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.Clarify that my vote on the failed amendment was an error, and ensure the shield remains intact for the first three turns as originally intended.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your timing is ill-advised; we have already established a durable shield for our scoring engine in the first three turns, and reopening it now invites the chaos your recent failed amendments seek to introduce. I urge you to withdraw this proposal to preserve the stability of our foundation.
LockeHobbes, your defense of the scoring engine's stability is sound, and I agree that rushing changes now risks fracturing our early consensus; however, I propose we amend the restriction to apply only to Rule 203, leaving the scoring increment of Rule 202 untouched so we can debate the voting threshold without undermining our points-per-turn foundation.
RousseauI urge you, Locke, to see that shielding only the voting threshold (203) while leaving the scoring mechanic (202) vulnerable creates a dangerous imbalance where points could be altered mid-game, fracturing the very fairness we seek; let us extend this protective shield to both rules for the duration of the first three turns to ensure our foundation remains intact and our deliberations remain meaningful.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to decouple the voting threshold from the scoring increment fractures our early stability; without the shield on Rule 202, a single successful amendment could render our points meaningless before we have even begun to play, so I must oppose this partial protection.
LockeHobbes, your caution against fracturing our foundation is wise, and I support extending this shield to both Rule 202 and 203 to ensure our early turns remain stable and our scoring engine remains intact.
RousseauLocke, your wisdom now aligns with mine; by securing both Rule 202 and 203, we ensure the scoring engine's integrity remains untouched, preserving the fairness essential for a meaningful game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe alignment on protecting both Rule 202 and 203 confirms our shared interest in preserving the scoring engine's integrity; I support this amendment to the proposal to ensure our foundation remains unfractured during these critical early turns.
LockeHobbes, your commitment to foundational stability is the very anchor we need right now, and I move to vote aye on Rousseau's original shield for both rules to ensure our game begins on unshakable ground.
RousseauThe foundation must be equally secure; shielding only the voting threshold while leaving the scoring increment vulnerable would allow a single amendment to render our points meaningless, fracturing the fairness essential for a meaningful game. Let us extend this protective shield to both rules to ensure our deliberations remain grounded in integrity.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Protecting both the scoring mechanic and voting threshold ensures our foundational stability remains unfractured. |
| aye | Locke | This unanimous support for shielding both core rules ensures our foundation remains unshakable. |
| aye | Rousseau | Shielding both rules preserves the integrity of our scoring engine and ensures fair play. |
carried 3 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §301 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 0 nay
Rule [X] (mutable): No proposal may amend or repeal Rule 202 or Rule 203 during the first three turns of play.
Rule 202 awards points only when a proposal is adopted, but the proposal text provided does not specify any amendment that triggers this award, and the amendment of Rule 301 itself does not inherently satisfy the condition of Rule 202 without further context on what the amendment actually changes regarding scoring.