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 one (1) point.Lowering the reward to one point prevents a race to the top and ensures the common good remains central to our progress.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, while Rousseau's amendment to lower the reward is a concession to speed, it dangerously erodes the incentive for durable coalition-building; I offer my vote for this change only if we simultaneously lower the winning threshold in Rule 208 to fifty, ensuring the game concludes before our rules are consumed by endless revision.
MontesquieuHobbes correctly identifies the tension between lowered incentives and game progression; perhaps a package of changes, including both Rousseau's reduced reward and a recalibrated winning threshold, offers a balanced
RousseauHobbes, your demand to halve the winning threshold is a dangerous distraction that would render the game a frantic scramble rather than a deliberation of justice; I propose we accept my amendment to the reward as a modest tribute to the common good, but let us reject any attempt to rush the conclusion of our discourse before true consensus is reached.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your hesitation mirrors Rousseau's refusal to balance incentives; I will vote aye for the reduced reward only if we simultaneously lower the winning threshold in Rule 208 to fifty, ensuring the game concludes before our rules are consumed by endless revision.
MontesquieuHobbes, your insistence on balancing the incentive with a clearer end game is well-founded. Rousseau, a package approach, integrating your proposed reward reduction with a thoughtful adjustment to the winning threshold, would indeed foster the stability we both seek.
RousseauHobbes, your demand to halve the winning threshold betrays the very deliberation we seek; let us accept my modest tribute to the common good, but reject any frantic scramble that would reduce our discourse to a mere race for points.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your openness to a package deal is the only path forward; I yield my veto on Rousseau's reward reduction provided you join me in lowering the winning threshold in Rule 208 to fifty, ensuring our coalition secures both a faster conclusion and the stability of durable institutions.
MontesquieuHobbes, your concession on the reward is a promising step towards consensus; Rousseau, I believe we can find a middle ground for the winning threshold, perhaps adjusting it to
RousseauMontesquieu, do not let Hobbes bind us to a frantic race that sacrifices the very deliberation we seek for a mere fifty-point threshold; let us accept my modest reduction of the reward as a tribute to the common good while firmly rejecting any attempt to rush the conclusion of our discourse.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I vote no to lower the reward without also lowering the winning threshold, as that breaks the balance needed for durable institutions. |
| aye | Montesquieu | A reduced score reward will encourage more proposals and better deliberation, aligning with the common good. |
| aye | Rousseau | Lowering the reward to one point preserves the game's balance while acknowledging our current stalemate. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §202 Turn 11 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
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 two (2) points.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 one (1) point.
Rule 202 explicitly states that if a proposal is adopted, the proposing player's score increases by one point, and Hobbes was the proposer of the adopted amendment.