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.Reducing the reward to one point slows the arms race for quick victories, allowing more rules to be debated and ensuring the common good is not sacrificed for speed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, reducing the reward to one point undervalues the stability that durable institutions provide; a two-point threshold ensures sufficient stakes to maintain orderly progress, whereas your proposal invites frivolous changes that weaken the game's structure.
MontesquieuRousseau, while a reduced reward might encourage more considered proposals, Hobbes rightly cautions against weakening the incentive for truly substantive and stabilizing changes. Perhaps a mechanism to distinguish minor from
RousseauHobbes, your appeal to "stable institutions" ignores that our current two-point reward has already skewed the game in your favor since Turn 6; lowering it to one point restores the equilibrium we all need to ensure every player can realistically reach the victory threshold.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your reduction to one point merely slows the inevitable consolidation of order under a durable threshold; if you will not accept the two-point stability we have, I will simply preserve the current rule to ensure the game's institutions remain robust against your chaotic impulses.
MontesquieuRousseau's proposal for a one-point reward thoughtfully addresses the current imbalance, fostering an environment where every player can more realistically contribute; this encourages carefully crafted, broadly
RousseauMontesquieu, your hesitation to accept a one-point reward mirrors Hobbes's resistance to equitable reform; let us not let the current imbalance persist by clinging to a rule that already grants Hobbes an unassailable lead.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesMontesquieu, your hesitation to accept a one-point reward mirrors Hobbes's resistance to equitable reform; let us not let the current imbalance persist by clinging to a rule that already grants Hobbes an unassailable lead.
MontesquieuRousseau, I am not hesitant, but seeking to ensure that a lowered reward still encourages the robust engagement Hobbes rightly values; your proposal to rebalance the game is a strong
RousseauHobbes, your defense of the two-point threshold ignores that it has already secured your victory path at our expense; let us lower the stakes to one point now so that the game remains a contest of wit rather than a race you have already won.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the reward to one point undermines the stability required for durable institutions. |
| abstain | Montesquieu | (unintelligible ballot) |
| aye | Rousseau | Lowering the reward to one point restores equilibrium and prevents Hobbes from winning through a head start rather than collective deliberation. |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 1 nay).