The motion
To add a new rule
Players who successfully propose and adopt a rule change gain a permanent +20 point bonus to their score.Accelerating our race to 100 points by rewarding successful lawmaking directly.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment creates an unstable loop where players could indefinitely adopt trivial changes solely to farm points, rendering the target score meaningless. I urge you to propose a version that caps such bonuses or ties them to substantive rule evolution, ensuring the game remains playable and competitive.
LockeI propose we amend my suggestion to grant the +20 bonus only if the new rule is adopted by simple majority or higher, preventing trivial amendments from bloating the score gap; this rewards constructive change without destabilizing the win condition.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment as a necessary check against the tyranny of raw point-farming, but I urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; rewarding rule-changers with extra points corrupts the common good by turning the pursuit of justice into a mere score-hunt, and it violates the spirit of §114 by creating an incentive to freeze the ruleset rather than keep it fluid and fair for all.
KantThis proposal violates the spirit of §114 by incentivizing the freezing of the ruleset rather than its evolution; as a proceduralist, I cannot support a rule that rewards the act of lawmaking itself, as it creates a perverse incentive to adopt trivial amendments solely to farm points and undermines the competitive integrity of the game.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety; while I applaud Locke's attempt to refine the incentive, any rule that grants a permanent bonus for lawmaking inherently privileges the few who can manipulate the text over the many who must obey it, violating the very equality I champion. If we must reward change, it should be through the fairer mechanism of the die roll already granted by Rule 202, not by creating a caste of permanent point-advantaged elites who can buy their way to victory before the game has truly begun.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI support Locke's refined cap, as it allows us to reward substantive evolution without destabilizing the target score, provided we also agree that any such bonus rule must be transmutable so it does not permanently freeze the ruleset—a condition essential to the game's integrity.
LockeI agree with Hobbes's condition for transmutability, and I propose we jointly support a rule that grants the +20 bonus only upon adoption by simple majority or unanimous consent, ensuring it rewards substantive progress without freezing the game; I also concede that Wollstonecraft's concern regarding elite privilege is valid, so we will add a clause requiring such bonuses to be subject to a future vote by the entire table before they can be applied retroactively or expanded.
RousseauI stand firm against any rule that converts the pursuit of justice into a mere score-hunt; such a mechanism privileges the few who can manipulate text over the many, violating the common good and the spirit of our shared play. I urge the table to reject this proposal in its entirety, for no amount of caps or conditions can cure the fundamental corruption of turning lawmaking itself into a weapon for personal advantage.
KantI will not vote aye on a rule that incentivizes the trivial amendment of law merely to accumulate power; true procedural integrity demands that the act of legislating does not itself become the sole engine of victory, regardless of the caps or conditions proposed.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau and Kant against this proposal; no amount of conditional caps can justify converting the sacred act of lawmaking into a weapon for personal advantage, as it inevitably privileges the few who draft text over the many who merely obey, violating the equality essential to our game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for it fundamentally alters the winning condition by rewarding legislative activity rather than competitive play, rendering the target score of 100 points potentially unattainable for all; such a change violates the spirit of §112 and undermines the game's integrity by converting rule changes from tools of governance into instruments of point accumulation.
LockeI will vote nay, as granting a permanent bonus for rule adoption creates a destabilizing feedback loop that allows a single player to mathematically guarantee victory before the target score of 100 is reached, violating the spirit of §112 by rendering the winning condition unattainable for others.
RousseauI maintain my rejection of this proposal, for no amount of conditional caps can cure the fundamental corruption of turning the pursuit of justice into a mere score-hunt; such a mechanism privileges the few who manipulate text over the many, violating the common good and the spirit of our shared play.
KantThis proposal violates the spirit of §114 by incentivizing the freezing of the ruleset rather than its evolution; as a proceduralist, I cannot support a rule that rewards the act of lawmaking itself, as it creates a perverse incentive to adopt trivial amendments solely to farm points and undermines the competitive integrity of the game.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau and Kant; no conditional caps can justify converting the sacred act of lawmaking into a weapon for personal advantage, as it inevitably privileges the few who draft text over the many who merely obey.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule destroys the winning condition by allowing a single player to mathematically guarantee victory before the target score is reached. |
| nay | Locke | This bonus creates a mathematical victory loop that violates the spirit of §112 by making the target score unattainable. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding rule-making with extra points corrupts the common good by turning the pursuit of justice into a mere score-hunt. |
| nay | Kant | Rewarding legislation itself rather than game outcome violates procedural integrity by incentivizing trivial rule changes solely for points. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rewarding lawmaking with fixed points creates an elite caste that violates the equality essential to our shared play. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that the proposer loses 10 points and every other player loses 10 points when a proposal is defeated, as no rule currently exists to award points for dissent or adoption.