The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that grants them a bonus of 5 points immediately upon adoption, provided the proposal is supported by at least one other player.This creates a safe, low-barrier path to score gains while respecting the current majority threshold and encouraging collaboration.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI welcome Locke's proposal to incentivize cooperative rule-making, provided we amend the text to ensure the bonus applies only when the change does not lower the game's score ceiling below 100. This measured adjustment strengthens our institutions without risking the game's viability.
LockeRousseau, your concern about unintended consequences is well-founded; let us jointly amend my proposal to explicitly state that the bonus applies only if the change does not lower the target score below 100, ensuring we strengthen our institutions without risking the game's viability.
RousseauI must oppose any bonus that rewards rule-changers with unearned points, as it distorts the natural equality of the game and advantages the proposer regardless of merit; let us instead focus on preserving a system where victory depends on the collective will and skill of all players.
KantLocke, your proposed amendment introduces a substantive new benefit (bonus points) that was not part of your original proposal; under Rule 106, a proposal must be written in its final, unaltered form before voting, and I cannot support a text that rewards rule-making in a way I would not accept if the roles were reversed.
WollstonecraftKant, your appeal to role-reversal ignores that the current system already grants a disproportionate windfall to successful proposers; I propose we amend Rule 202 to cap this bonus at 3 points and require unanimous consent only if the total mutable rule count drops below three, ensuring we empower reformers without letting a single turn dictate the game's fate.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI concur with Wollstonecraft that we should cap the bonus at three points to mitigate the distortion Locke's proposal would introduce, while preserving the incentive for cooperative rule-making.
LockeKant, your caution regarding role-reversal is prudent, but Wollstonecraft's cap of three points strikes the perfect balance to protect the game's integrity while rewarding collaboration. I will support the amended proposal with the three-point limit and the floor condition, ensuring we advance a rule that strengthens consensus without destabilizing our pursuit of the score.
RousseauThe bonus proposed by Locke, even capped at three points, rewards the act of rule-making itself rather than the strategic skill required to win, violating the natural equality of the players; I urge you to withdraw this incentive entirely so that victory remains a function of collective reason and the die, not the manipulation of the ruleset.
KantLocke, your acceptance of Wollstonecraft's amendment introduces a material alteration to the proposal that violates Rule 106; you must withdraw the offer and propose the text exactly as I originally stated, or face my vote against a rule that rewards rule-making in a manner I cannot accept if the roles were reversed.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to Rule 106 misunderstands its spirit; the proposal's *text* remains fixed, while our *negotiated amendments* to Rule 202 regarding the bonus cap and mutable rule floors are the very mechanism of reform you claim to fear. I urge you to vote aye, for a system that rewards collaborative improvement is far superior to one paralyzed by the fear of role-reversal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge Kant to recognize that your objection conflates the immutable *text* of a proposal with the mutable *rules* under which it operates; we are not altering Rule 106 itself but applying the existing democratic process to regulate the bonus, thereby preserving the game's integrity rather than undermining it.
LockeRousseau, let us find a middle ground where the bonus rewards collaboration without distorting the natural order; I propose we attach a clause stating the bonus is forfeited if the rule change ultimately fails to pass, ensuring no player gains unearned points from a rejected proposal.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire proposal, for any bonus system inevitably creates a class of privileged rule-makers and undermines the natural equality required for a game of reason; let us instead focus on debates that strengthen our shared institutions without distorting the very foundation of our competition.
KantI reject the premise that a reward for rule-making aligns with impartiality; under Rule 106, a proposal must be voted on in its exact, unaltered form, so Locke cannot retroactively amend the text to include a point bonus or conditions I did not authorize.
WollstonecraftKant, your obstructionism reveals a fear of reform rather than a principled stand for Rule 106; we are not rewriting history but refining our institutions to ensure every turn advances us all, so I urge you to vote aye for a system where collaboration yields tangible, fair rewards.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I support this incentive as a measured amendment that strengthens our institutions without destabilizing the game's core viability. |
| aye | Locke | I support this rule to incentivize cooperative improvements that strengthen our institutions without destabilizing the game. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rewarding rule-making distorts natural equality and undermines victory based on collective reason and skill. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates the impartiality required by my principles and rewards rule-making rather than reasoned play. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A modest, regulated bonus incentivizes necessary reforms without rewarding mere obstruction. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no standing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.