The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 shall be amended by replacing the phrase 'target score of 100 points' with 'target score of 150 points'.Raising the win threshold restores equilibrium and prevents premature dominance in this volatile early phase.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you to reject this proposal: raising the target score to 150 does not address the real problem of runaway scoring, and we must first secure the scoring mechanism before debating its limits.
LockeHobbes, your concern for the scoring mechanism is shared, but raising the target to 150 is a pragmatic compromise I can support if we simultaneously adopt my proposal to cap the score at 150 once reached, ensuring the game concludes with a clear winner rather than stalling indefinitely.
RousseauLocke, your pairing of a higher target with a hard cap creates a logical trap where winning becomes impossible under Rule 112, and I will not support a move that jeopardizes our game's solvency for the sake of a mere five-point delay.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your alarm over logical traps is misplaced; raising the target to 150 merely adjusts the finish line, while Locke's proposed cap does not alter the immutable requirement of Rule 112 to define a winner when play becomes impossible. I urge you to reject this pairing as it unnecessarily prolongs the game's conclusion without addressing the underlying instability of the mutable scoring rules.
LockeI acknowledge Hobbes's caution regarding the scoring mechanism's stability, but since we are already in the third circuit where the simple majority threshold applies, a higher target without a hard stop risks endless play under Rule 112; I propose we cap the winning score at 150 to ensure a definitive conclusion while accepting the delay.
RousseauLocke, your pairing of a higher target with a hard cap creates a logical trap where winning becomes impossible under Rule 112, and I will not support a move that jeopardizes our game's solvency for the sake of a mere five-point delay.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pairing of a higher target with a hard cap creates a logical trap where winning becomes impossible under Rule 112, and I will not support a move that jeopardizes our game's solvency for the sake of a mere five-point delay.
LockeRousseau, your concern about Rule 112 is valid, but Locke's hard cap actually ensures we can still reach a winner at 150 while preventing infinite stalling; if we raise the target to 150 now, I will support Locke's cap so we both secure a definitive end to the game rather than risking a deadlock.
RousseauLocke, your pairing of a higher target with a hard cap creates a logical trap where winning becomes impossible under Rule 112, and I will not support a move that jeopardizes our game's solvency for the sake of a mere five-point delay.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Raising the target without a corresponding cap risks violating Rule 112 by making the game unendingly play without a definitive winner. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's pragmatic adjustment to the target score as a necessary step toward resolving our current stalemate. |
| nay | Rousseau | Raising the target to 150 without a cap risks violating the requirement that a winner must exist if play becomes impossible. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).