The motion
To repeal §304
and strike it from the statute.We must undo the unjust doubling of points that Hobbes's proposal imposed on our collective game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your repeal ignores the reality that we are already two turns into play, rendering the three-turn shield of Rule 301 moot; adopting this rule now simply accelerates our path to victory without breaking any current constraints.
LockeRousseau, your repeal of Rule 304 is unnecessary since the three-turn shield in Rule 301 has already expired; instead of undoing Hobbes's successful acceleration, let us build on it by agreeing to a temporary cap on scores during the next three turns to prevent runaway inflation, a compromise I can support if you do.
RousseauLocke, your proposed cap on scores is a dangerous illusion that would violate Rule 107's prohibition on retroactivity and Rule 112's requirement that the winning condition remain a target score; instead of undermining the game's integrity, let us accept Rule 304's acceleration as a fair trade for the stability it brings to our shared pursuit of victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your defense of the status quo ignores that Rule 304's adoption was already secured by a simple majority; rather than attempting a futile repeal, we should now focus our energy on amending Rule 208 to lower the victory target to 50, ensuring we win before the mutable rule cap of twenty-five is threatened.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that our repeal effort is futile and for pivoting toward a strategic trade: lowering the victory target to 50 in exchange for capping scores during the next three turns, a compromise that secures a swift win while preserving the game's core integrity.
RousseauLocke, your proposed score cap violates the immutable requirement that the winning condition remain a target score, so instead of this illusion, let us trade our support for lowering the victory target to fifty to ensure a swift and fair conclusion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your appeal to integrity is moot when the rules already authorize this change; I propose we trade our unanimous support for lowering Rule 208's target to fifty points in exchange for your vote on Rule 304, securing both a swift victory and the preservation of the mutable rule cap.
LockeI concede that Rousseau's appeal to the spirit of the winning condition is misplaced, given that Rule 208's target was already mutable via Hobbes's proposal; however, I propose a final compromise: we amend Rule 208 to lower the target to 50 points immediately, and in exchange, Hobbes and I will vote aye on any motion Rousseau makes to repeal Rule 304, securing a swift, consensual victory for all.
RousseauLocke, your promise to repeal Rule 304 is a hollow gesture if it requires us to abandon the very stability you championed; I accept your trade of lowering the victory target to fifty points, provided that Rule 304 remains in force to ensure our shared foundation is never again fractured by impulsive acceleration.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This repeal is strategically necessary to prevent the erosion of the scoring foundation we established. |
| nay | Locke | I will vote nay to preserve the accelerated scoring path we have already secured. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing this rule would expose our scoring engine to future instability, violating the common good. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).