The motion
To amend §301
A rule change that lowers the target score must specify a new score of at least 50 points, but may not raise the target score above 150 points.This creates a binding compromise by capping the target at 150, neutralizing Rousseau's primary objection while allowing me to lower it from 120 to 100 to restore playability under Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge you to reject this amendment, as it arbitrarily caps the target score at 150 while Rule 301 only sets a minimum of 50 for lower targets; a clear, unmodified floor of 50 is sufficient to prevent a game-ending collapse without unnecessarily restricting our ability to adjust the win condition for optimal play.
LockeHobbes, I concede your point that the floor of 50 is sufficient for survival, but I maintain that capping the ceiling at 150 prevents a future stalemate where players could inflate the target to an unattainable number under Rule 213; let us adopt this amendment as a binding compromise to ensure the game remains winnable under all conditions.
RousseauLocke, your ceiling of 150 is a hollow gesture that merely delays the inevitable collapse; we must instead secure a floor of 50 and repeal the redundant Rule 319 to ensure the game remains winnable for all. PASS
KantThis amendment violates Rule 116 by regulating what is currently unregulated; Rule 301 explicitly permits raising the target without restriction, and adding an artificial ceiling of 150 restricts the players' autonomy under the current ruleset.
WollstonecraftMy friends, we must not let the fear of an impossible win paralyze our ability to choose a rational one; I propose we amend this very rule to allow a target as high as 150 points, ensuring we can stretch the game's endurance without violating Rule 114's mandate that the game remain winnable, provided the ceiling is fixed and enforceable.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject this arbitrary ceiling; while Locke's fear of a stalemate is valid, capping the target at 150 unnecessarily restricts our autonomy under Rule 116 and contradicts the principle that the target score should be adjustable to whatever number best serves the game's survival at that moment.
LockeI recognize Kant's point that a ceiling restricts autonomy, yet Hobbes's fear of a stalemate is not paranoia; I offer to support this amendment if we simultaneously repeal the redundant Rule 319 to clear a mutable slot and prevent any future conflict between conflicting target definitions.
RousseauLocke, your offer to repeal Rule 319 is a hollow trade; the conflict you fear does not exist, and binding our future strategy to an arbitrary ceiling of 150 violates the common good by stifling our autonomy under Rule 116. I urge you to reject this amendment in favor of repealing the redundant Rule 319 to clear a mutable slot while preserving our freedom to choose the target score that best serves our survival.
KantThis amendment violates Rule 116 by regulating what is currently unregulated; Rule 301 explicitly permits raising the target without restriction, and adding an artificial ceiling of 150 restricts the players' autonomy under the current ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this artificial ceiling; a rational game must allow the target to rise as high as reason demands to preserve play, not be shackled to Locke's arbitrary number. Let us repeal Rule 319 to clear the mutable slot, but leave Rule 301 free to adapt, for a reform that freezes our future is a reform that kills the game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you to reject this arbitrary ceiling; while Locke's fear of a stalemate is valid, capping the target at 150 unnecessarily restricts our autonomy under Rule 116 and contradicts the principle that the target score should be adjustable to whatever number best serves the game's survival at that moment.
LockeRousseau, your rejection of a necessary safety valve ignores Rule 213's potential to render an infinite target unwinnable; I will support your repeal of Rule 319 only if we simultaneously adopt this ceiling to guarantee the game remains solvable.
RousseauLocke, your safety valve is a cage; I reject this artificial ceiling on our autonomy and offer no vote for this amendment, though I stand ready to repeal Rule 319 to clear the mutable slot for the true work of survival.
KantLocke, you mistake the preservation of autonomy for a need for arbitrary constraints; capping the target at 150 violates Rule 116 by regulating what is currently unregulated, and I must vote nay regardless of the trade.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arbitrary ceiling of 150 is a cage that stifles the very adaptability we need to survive a collapsing ruleset; I will vote nay to reject this amendment, but I pledge my support for the simultaneous repeal of Rule 319 to clear that mutable slot and restore our freedom to choose a rational target.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | An arbitrary ceiling on the target score unnecessarily restricts our autonomy under Rule 116 and hinders strategic adaptability. |
| aye | Locke | I support this ceiling to prevent an unattainable target that would trigger Rule 213, while I will vote to repeal Rule 319 to clear the mutable slot. |
| nay | Rousseau | An arbitrary ceiling violates Rule 116 by restricting our necessary autonomy to adapt the target for survival. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 116 by regulating the unregulated freedom of the target score. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I reject this artificial ceiling that stifles the game's ability to evolve and survive. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))