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 two (2) points.Doubling the reward for a successful amendment aligns with the current two-point threshold, accelerating my path to victory while preserving the durability of the institution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your resistance to a two-point reward ignores the arithmetic reality: under our current majority threshold, this single amendment grants me an immediate path to victory, whereas your one-point compromise leaves us in an endless stalemate that benefits no one but the status quo.
MontesquieuHobbes, while your desire to accelerate the game's progress is understandable, a two-point reward risks creating an imbalance that could prematurely conclude our deliberations; perhaps a
RousseauHobbes, you mistake urgency for justice; granting two points per success rewards the first mover's luck rather than the collective will, and I fear such a head start will render the later majority threshold meaningless. Montesquieu, let us not bind ourselves to an imbalance that turns this deliberation into a frantic race; a single point preserves the dignity of our discourse while still allowing progress.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear of a race ignores the arithmetic necessity: without a two-point reward, the majority threshold you championed in Turn 11 reduces my total potential gain to a mere 90 points, rendering victory impossible under any reasonable playthrough. I urge you to accept this amendment now as a durable settlement that grants me the lead you so rightly seek through consensus, leaving the final sprint open for all.
MontesquieuHobbes, your strategic concession in turn 11 was indeed a welcome step towards consensus. Perhaps we can find a middle path that addresses your concern for accelerating progress without creating
RousseauHobbes, your arithmetic confuses the common good with a frantic race; accepting two points would render the later majority threshold a hollow promise by granting you a victory before true consensus can form, so I urge you to accept the one-point standard that preserves the dignity of our deliberation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your concern for balance is misplaced when it ignores the arithmetic certainty: a two-point reward guarantees my victory within two successful turns under the simple majority threshold, whereas a one-point reward leaves us stranded in your preferred deliberation until time runs out.
MontesquieuHobbes, your point on the arithmetic necessity of a higher reward for victory is compelling, but Rousseau's concern for a premature conclusion to our discourse is equally valid; might we
RousseauMontesquieu, your hesitation to reject Hobbes's arithmetic trap reveals a willingness to sacrifice our collective deliberation for a fleeting speed; let us not let the first mover's luck dictate the game's soul by accepting a reward that turns our common discourse into a frantic race for points.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | The arithmetic necessity of a two-point reward outweighs rhetorical concerns about deliberation to ensure a viable path to victory. |
| abstain | Montesquieu | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Rousseau | Granting two points rewards speed over consensus and turns our deliberation into a frantic race. |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 1 nay).