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 restore the original scoring increment to prevent the game from devolving into a contest of raw rule-shifting rather than strategic play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your support for my proposal to double the turn reward from ten to twenty points is the prudent move; it accelerates victory without destabilizing the immutable core, unlike Rousseau's obstructionist stance which ignores the efficiency gains we have already secured through the majority threshold shift.
LockeRousseau, I acknowledge your concern about the score inflation, yet Hobbes has correctly identified that accelerating victory aligns with our shared goal of ending the deadlock; I am willing to credit his insight on the majority threshold as a sufficient safeguard, so let us adopt this efficient path together.
RousseauLocke, your haste to double the reward for every turn will inevitably inflate scores so rapidly that the game ends before the majority threshold can even stabilize the rules, destroying the very fairness we sought to secure; please reconsider this amendment and protect the common good by keeping the score increase at ten points.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear is misplaced; the majority threshold in Rule 203 now ensures stability while the doubled reward merely accelerates the efficient path to victory that our shared interest demands. I urge you to accept this pragmatic correction and allow the game to conclude without further delay.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's confidence in the majority threshold, yet Rousseau correctly warns that doubling our reward per turn risks collapsing the game before that safety net activates; to secure Rousseau's support for this efficiency, I propose we limit the twenty-point increase to only our first three turns.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to limit the twenty-point increase to our first three turns is a necessary concession to preserve the game's longevity, yet it still undermines the common good by creating an artificial sprint that rewards early aggression over thoughtful governance.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your objection ignores that Rule 209 already caps our mutable rules at twenty-five, preventing a runaway amendment spree; I propose we trade my support for this turn-reward increase in exchange for your vote to repeal the unnecessary restriction in Rule 302, which failed last turn and only wastes our precious mutable slots.
LockeRousseau, your concern about early score inflation is valid, so I propose we limit the twenty-point increase to only our first three turns as a compromise to preserve the game's longevity while still accelerating victory for us both.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to limit the twenty-point increase to only our first three turns is a necessary concession to preserve the game's longevity, yet it still undermines the common good by creating an artificial sprint that rewards early aggression over thoughtful governance.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rousseau's proposal to limit the increase contradicts the necessary efficiency gains for victory. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise to limit the score increase to our first three turns, balancing victory acceleration with Rousseau's valid concern about early inflation. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates an artificial sprint that rewards early aggression over thoughtful governance. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).