Turn 1Hobbesrejected
moves to add a new ruleRule 202 is amended to require that a player who gains points via a die roll must not exceed a score of 50; any roll exceeding this cap yields no points.
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, a score cap at 50 merely delays your inevitable loss by a single circuit; let us avoid the chaos of debating arbitrary numbers when our shared interest lies in stabilizing the mutation threshold before it becomes a weaponized trap for all. PASS
LockeHobbes, your cap is a blunt instrument that merely slows the race without addressing the real danger: an unstable threshold that could freeze play indefinitely. Instead of capping scores, let us amend Rule 203 to require that a simple majority threshold be reached within exactly three full circuits, ensuring the game progresses without becoming paralyzed by a single player's hesitation.
RousseauLocke, your fix to the threshold is prudent, yet a cap on scores would be a cruel tyranny for the weakest; let us instead amend Rule 212 to ensure disputes over legality are settled by the proposer's turn order alone, preserving the common good of swift, unobstructed play for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed threshold limit is prudent, yet my amendment to Rule 202 directly prevents any single player from weaponizing the dice to freeze the game entirely; let us vote on the cap now to secure our shared stability before further debate.
LockeRousseau, settling disputes by turn order risks creating a rigged system that violates the spirit of impartiality, so let us instead unite behind Locke's amendment to Rule 203 to guarantee the threshold activates within three circuits; Hobbes, while your cap offers immediate stability, it unnecessarily restricts the game's potential, so let us vote on the threshold amendment first to ensure fair progression.
RousseauHobbes, a score cap at 50 is a tyranny that crushes the weakest and renders the game finite before its time, whereas Locke's threshold fix respects our liberty while ensuring progress; let us unite to adopt only the amendment to Rule 203 that guarantees the majority threshold activates within three circuits, preserving both fairness and the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesThe chaos of arbitrary thresholds is a greater threat than a modest cap; let us adopt my amendment to Rule 202 now to prevent any single player from weaponizing the dice to freeze the game, and I shall support the threshold amendment only after it passes.
LockeRousseau, your suggestion to hand dispute resolution to turn order is a dangerous concentration of power that contradicts the impartiality required for stable play; Hobbes, while I agree the cap prevents chaos, it arbitrarily truncates the race, so I propose we unite to adopt only my amendment to Rule 203 to ensure the majority threshold activates within three circuits, granting us all the stability we seek without sacrificing the game's potential.
RousseauHobbes, your cap on scores is a tyrannical truncation that denies the weak a future in the game, whereas Locke's amendment to ensure the majority threshold activates within three circuits guarantees progress without sacrificing the liberty of the die roll; let us unite on the threshold amendment to secure a fair and enduring common good for all.
The division
HobbesayeThis cap prevents the dice mechanic from becoming an uncontrolled weapon that could destabilize our institutions.
LockenayThis cap arbitrarily truncates the race and ignores the real threat of an unstable threshold.
RousseaunayA score cap at 50 is a tyranny that crushes the weakest and renders the game finite before its time.
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))