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 point.I restore the one-point reward to align with the immutable spirit of competition and my current strategic needs.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesMontesquieu, your silence on the arithmetic reality is deafening: a single point is the only mechanism that prevents this game from devolving into an endless, paralyzed stalemate where no player can ever reach a win condition. Adopt this amendment now to secure the durability of our institutions, or you doom us all to a rulebook that cannot function.
MontesquieuHobbes, your concern for preventing stalemate is vital, but rule 202 already secures a single point for each adopted proposal; this amendment, while precise, offers no functional
RousseauHobbes, your arithmetic fear of stalemate ignores that the current one-point reward is already sufficient to incentivize progress without sacrificing the deliberation essential to a just game; do not bind us to a frantic race that turns our society into a mere machine of scoring.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMontesquieu, your claim that the current reward secures progress ignores the arithmetic trap: at one point per proposal, I cannot reach 50 points before the mutable rule cap of 30 is hit, rendering the win condition impossible under [209] and violating [114]. This amendment is not a frantic race but a necessary restoration of the game's durability; without it, the very institutions we seek to preserve will collapse into a self-contradictory dead end.
MontesquieuHobbes, your identification of the arithmetic impossibility is indeed a critical issue for the game's viability and the durability of our institutions; however, this proposal, by retaining the
RousseauMontesquieu, your silence on the arithmetic trap is deafening; if we retain only one point per turn, the mutable rule cap of thirty will inevitably render the win condition impossible, violating the fundamental requirement that the game must remain playable. Let us not sacrifice the common good of a coherent society for the sake of a frantic race that will collapse into contradiction.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your silence on the arithmetic necessity is deafening: at one point per turn, I cannot reach 75 before the mutable rule cap of thirty is hit, violating [114] and collapsing the game; I offer to accept the two-point reward permanently if you join me on this amendment to ensure our institutions do not self-destruct.
MontesquieuHobbes, your offer to secure a two-point reward is a significant step towards addressing the arithmetic impossibility, but this current proposal offers no functional change to the score; let
RousseauHobbes, your offer to accept two points is a hollow gesture; the game remains broken under one point per turn, and I will not trade our integrity for a frantic race that violates the common good. Let us propose an amendment that raises the reward to two points permanently, ensuring the game survives the mutable rule cap while preserving the deliberation we cherish.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I oppose this proposal because it fails to address the fatal arithmetic impossibility that would render the win condition unattainable under the existing mutable rule cap. |
| abstain | Montesquieu | (unintelligible ballot) |
| nay | Rousseau | I cannot support a proposal that reduces the incentive to deliberate and accelerates a race that undermines the common good. |
rejected 0 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Simple Majority (0 aye / 2 nay).