The motion
To amend §208
The target score to win the game is 90 points.Lowering the target to 90 creates a shared urgency that reduces the risk of paralysis from unanimity while still ensuring a decisive conclusion.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal to lower the victory target to 90 points is a dangerous concession to Rousseau's obstructionism that will extend this stalemate indefinitely; if we truly value progress, we must maintain the 100-point threshold to force decisive outcomes rather than rewarding the status quo.
LockeRousseau, your fear of rushing us is understandable, but Hobbes has correctly identified that extending the game only rewards paralysis; lowering the target to 90 is a fair compromise that gives us both the urgency to finish and the time to secure our positions before the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
RousseauLocke and Hobbes mistake the urgency of a shortened race for the common good; lowering the target to 90 merely accelerates the tyranny of the majority before our collective reason can mature. I propose we amend Rule 208 to raise the target to 120 points, ensuring that victory requires a true consensus of the game's progress rather than a premature capitulation to the strong.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your compromise to 90 points is a fatal error that validates Rousseau's obstruction; I must vote nay to preserve the 100-point target necessary to prevent a game of endless, fruitless deliberation.
LockeRousseau, raising the target to 120 merely extends the paralysis you fear without solving it; Locke's 90 is a necessary compromise to end this stalemate while still allowing us to secure our positions under the simple majority threshold.
RousseauYou mistake the tyranny of the majority for the liberty of the collective; I propose we amend Rule 208 to raise the target to 120 points, ensuring that victory requires a true consensus of the game's progress rather than a premature capitulation to the strong.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "compromise" to 90 is a tactical error that merely extends the paralysis by five turns; if we value the durable institution of decisive victory, we must reject any alteration that rewards the obstructionist delay tactics of the low-scoring player. I urge you to propose no change to the 100-point target, or at least one that does not lower it.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to raise the target to 120 rewards the very obstructionism you claim to fear, while Hobbes is right that 90 is too low; let us compromise by setting the victory target at 105 points, preserving a decisive finish without extending this stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to 105 points merely prolongs the paralysis by five turns without securing the common good; I propose we raise the target to 120 points so that victory demands a true consensus of the game's progress rather than a premature capitulation to the strong.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the target to 90 points merely rewards Rousseau's obstruction by extending the stalemate rather than resolving it. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise accelerates the inevitable victory while preserving enough time to stabilize our majority rule. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the target to 90 merely accelerates the tyranny of the majority before our collective reason has matured through full consensus. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))