The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that lowers the target score must specify a new score of at least 50 points.Preventing the reduction of the winning threshold too early keeps the game competitive and protects the current leader's reasonable path to victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA floor limit of fifty points preserves the structural integrity of the contest while ensuring that no single amendment can trivialize the effort required to win; I seek unanimous consent to establish this durable floor against future frivolous attempts.
LockeI support Hobbes's floor of 50; a lower threshold risks collapsing the contest's strategic depth, and this compromise preserves the challenge while preventing trivialization. If others fear a floor is too rigid, we might add that a score below 50 must be set by unanimous consent to further insulate it from majority whims.
RousseauA floor of fifty points is a reasonable safeguard, yet I propose we strengthen it by requiring unanimous consent for any change that lowers the target score below seventy-five, ensuring the game remains a genuine test of merit rather than a fleeting contest of whim.
KantA floor of fifty is insufficient to guarantee the game's survival if the threshold is repeatedly lowered by a transient majority; I propose we add a clause requiring unanimous consent for any reduction of the target score below eighty, ensuring the contest retains its necessary weight and preventing trivialization through procedural erosion.
WollstonecraftA floor of fifty is a mere bandage on a structural flaw; let us instead amend Rule 202 to award points for *every* adopted rule change, regardless of the proposer's die roll, ensuring that every vote to refine our laws yields tangible progress toward a shared victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke and Rousseau are right to guard against trivialization, yet your proposed floors of seventy-five or eighty fracture the principle of a uniform, durable standard; a single, clear floor of fifty is superior to a fragmented regime of conflicting thresholds. I accept Locke's amendment: we shall codify that any score below fifty requires unanimous consent, ensuring the game's integrity while avoiding the paralysis of multiple veto points.
LockeI endorse Hobbes and Locke's unified fifty-point floor as the most stable compromise against the fragmentation proposed by Rousseau and Kant; however, I offer a trade: I will support this floor if Wollstonecraft agrees that her proposed amendment to Rule 202 must be deferred until after this structural safeguard is secured, ensuring we build a solid foundation before altering our scoring mechanics.
RousseauI support the fifty-point floor as a necessary guard against trivialization, but I insist that Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 202 be voted on simultaneously rather than deferred, for a fair game requires both a secure target and a just distribution of points to preserve our common interest.
KantI reject the deferral of Rule 202's amendment, as securing a procedural right to gain points from *every* adopted change is a superior safeguard against the paralysis of unanimity and the erosion of our game's viability; let us vote on both proposals simultaneously, ensuring that the floor of fifty and the universal reward for lawmaking stand together as a robust defense against trivialization.
WollstonecraftThe floor of fifty is a mere bandage on a structural flaw; I propose we amend Rule 202 to award points for every adopted rule change, ensuring that every vote to refine our laws yields tangible progress toward a shared victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the deferral of Wollstonecraft's amendment; a durable floor is useless if the game collapses into paralysis before we can secure our path to victory, so I vote to adopt both the fifty-point floor and the universal point reward simultaneously.
LockeI endorse the simultaneous adoption of Hobbes's floor and Wollstonecraft's amendment, as securing a durable target while ensuring every law change yields points creates the most resilient framework for our shared victory. This dual approach balances structural integrity with the engine of progress, making it a proposal all rational players should support.
RousseauI support the floor of fifty as a necessary guard against trivialization, but I cannot endorse awarding points for every rule change regardless of content; such a mechanic would incentivize frivolous amendments that fracture our shared focus, so I propose we vote only on the floor limit now and address scoring mechanics in a subsequent turn.
KantI reject Rousseau's obstruction; we must secure both the fifty-point floor and the universal point reward now, as delaying either proposal leaves us vulnerable to future paralysis and trivialization.
WollstonecraftLet us not mistake the floor of fifty for a cure; if we allow frivolous amendments to flood the board, we shall never reach that floor regardless of its height, so I urge you to adopt my amendment to Rule 202 now to ensure every law we pass propels us toward victory rather than stalling us in endless debate.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | A durable minimum target prevents the contest from collapsing into triviality. |
| aye | Locke | I support this floor to ensure the game remains a meaningful contest without trivializing the victory condition. |
| aye | Rousseau | A fifty-point floor preserves the game's integrity without stifling our ability to evolve its rules. |
| aye | Kant | A uniform floor prevents arbitrary erosion of the contest's weight by transient majorities. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A durable floor is useless without a mechanism that guarantees every law passed propels us toward that shared victory. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change that lowers the target score must specify a new score of at least 50 points.
The adopted rule adds a new rule to the text but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.