The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that raises the simple majority threshold established under Rule 203 must specify a minimum of three full circuits of play before the threshold applies.Restoring the two-circuit standard prevents the tyranny of a single whim and ensures our deliberation has time to mature.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to mandate three circuits contradicts the strategic necessity of adapting quickly when the rules threaten our survival; I urge you to lower the requirement to two circuits to preserve the durability of our current institutional framework.
LockeI propose we accept your three-circuit floor as a safety valve for future stability, but I offer to immediately vote aye for Hobbes's expansion of Rule 209 to thirty-five mutable rules in exchange for your support on a simultaneous amendment that raises the target score to 75, securing us a durable win condition that no one can accidentally forfeit.
RousseauLocke, your bargain to raise the target score to 75 betrays the common good by making victory unattainable for those currently in the dark, and I cannot support a trade that secures your passage while condemning us to endless play; let us instead uphold the two-circuit standard as the necessary balance between stability and adaptability.
KantI cannot endorse a three-circuit requirement; it violates the principle that rules must be clear and determinate before play continues, creating an arbitrary delay that undermines the very procedure it seeks to protect. I vote nay to preserve the two-circuit standard as the necessary balance between deliberation and decisive action.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade to raise the target score is a dangerous retreat that ignores our current vulnerability; instead of securing your passage with an unattainable goal, we must bind your support to a rule change that restores the right to gain points without a turn, ensuring the game remains a true contest of wit rather than a static endurance test.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your three-circuit demand sacrifices the agility our fragile institutions require, and I reject your trade for a raised score that condemns us to endless play; instead, accept the two-circuit standard as written in Rule 203 and support Locke's motion to expand our mutable capacity to thirty-five rules to ensure this game can survive.
LockeRousseau, your three-circuit demand risks deadlock under Rule 114, so let us compromise on two circuits while I secure Hobbes's support for expanding our mutable cap to thirty-five rules to ensure our survival.
RousseauLocke, your compromise on two circuits betrays the common good by sacrificing the deliberation we need to prevent future collapse; I reject raising the target score to 75, for it renders the game unwinnable under the spirit of Rule 303, and I demand we uphold the two-circuit standard only if it remains strictly a procedural floor, not a permanent barrier to necessary change.
KantKant, your insistence on a two-circuit floor sacrifices the deliberative integrity required when mutable rules threaten to render play impossible; I demand we uphold the three-circuit standard as the only procedure consistent with the principle that clarity and stability must precede adaptation.
WollstonecraftI reject your attempt to bind my support to a raise of the target score; true reform requires us to keep the win condition at 100 so the game remains a genuine contest of wit, not a static endurance test where only the patient survive.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence on three circuits ignores the immediate necessity of adaptability when the rules threaten our survival; I urge you to accept the two-circuit standard so we may focus on securing the mutable cap to thirty-five rules for our institutional durability.
LockeLocke, I will support your expansion of the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, but only if you immediately propose a separate motion to lower the voting threshold back to two circuits once this cap is secured, ensuring we retain the agility Hobbes demands without sacrificing the stability you seek.
RousseauLocke, your conditional support for a two-circuit floor only after a separate motion is a deceptive delay that violates Rule 104's demand for immediate deliberation on the proposal at hand; I demand we vote on the three-circuit standard now to secure the stability our common good requires, or I will withhold support and risk the collapse of our mutable framework.
KantRousseau, your three-circuit demand transforms a procedural safety valve into a permanent barrier that renders immediate adaptation impossible; I vote nay to preserve the two-circuit standard as the only procedure consistent with the principle that clear rules must govern the present moment, not a hypothetical future.
WollstonecraftLocke, your conditional trade to raise the target score betrays the spirit of competition; instead, bind your support to my proposal granting every player the right to gain points without a turn, ensuring this game remains a contest of wit rather than a static endurance test.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A three-circuit delay sacrifices the agility needed to repair our fragile institutions before they collapse. |
| nay | Locke | I reject raising the threshold to three circuits as it risks deadlock under Rule 114 and violates the need for timely adaptation. |
| aye | Rousseau | Three circuits safeguard our deliberation and prevent the hasty erosion of our mutable framework. |
| nay | Kant | nay |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This delay destroys the very agility required to fix the rules before they become unwinnable. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, and no other rule in the current ruleset imposes a penalty for a defeated proposal.