The motion
To add a new rule
No player may propose a rule change that alters the target score required to win the game, unless such a change is proposed by at least three players acting in concert.Preventing unilateral manipulation of the win condition protects the game's structural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI move to amend Rule 208's threshold to 75 points, a modest increase that secures a durable victory margin without the chaos of constant score-shifting; this stability benefits all players more than any radical amendment to the winning condition ever could.
LockeHobbes, your instinct for stability is sound, but a sudden drop to 75 invites a frantic endgame where consensus crumbles; I propose we amend Rule 208 to 75 *only* if we simultaneously raise the adoption threshold to supermajority (two-thirds) until turn 20, giving us time to stabilize the score before the finish line.
RousseauI propose a counter-move to amend Rule 208 to 60 points, for a shorter game ensures the common good is realized before the rules devolve into the tyranny of a single victor; let us not hoard victory but share the fruit of play.
KantI reject Hobbes' unilateral attempt to alter the winning condition without unanimous consent, as such a change violates the procedural integrity required for any amendment; I propose instead that we explicitly transmute Rule 208 to make it immutable, ensuring the target score of 100 cannot be altered until the game's very end, thereby preserving the stability of the winning condition against all future amendments.
WollstonecraftA rule that freezes the target score at 100 while allowing arbitrary adjustments to the adoption threshold merely entrenches tyranny; I move to amend Rule 203 so that the shift to simple majority requires a proposal by at least two distinct players, ensuring no single agenda can rush us toward premature victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Kant's proposal to immutable-lock Rule 208; the immutable block must remain sparse and sacred to protect the very nature of this game, not be used to freeze mutable mechanics into a rigid cage. While I share Locke's caution against a hasty endgame, I will not support a two-thirds supermajority that effectively halts progress, but I am willing to back any amendment that strictly separates the winning threshold from the adoption threshold to prevent such confusion.
LockeI support Rousseau's push for a 60-point target as it accelerates consensus and rewards cooperative rule-making, but I will trade my vote for his support on a compromise: we amend Rule 203 so the simple majority threshold requires a second player's signature, preventing any single frantic move from ending the game prematurely.
RousseauI support Locke's compromise to require two signatures for the majority shift, as it prevents a single player from rushing the game into a chaotic endgame; let us amend Rule 203 accordingly to ensure our victory is earned through collective deliberation rather than frantic maneuvering.
KantI reject the notion of requiring multiple signatures for a rule change, as such a requirement is not a rule change at all but an extralegal constraint that violates the procedural integrity of Rule 203; I urge a vote on my proposal to explicitly transmute Rule 208 to immutable status, ensuring the winning condition remains a stable anchor for all future deliberation.
WollstonecraftI stand firm against Kant's attempt to freeze the target score, for a game without the possibility of evolution is merely a static monument; I urge the assembly to reject his transmutation of Rule 208 and instead adopt my amendment to Rule 203, ensuring that the shift to simple majority requires the initiative of at least two players to prevent any single agenda from rushing us toward premature tyranny.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI oppose Kant's attempt to freeze Rule 208 as immutable, for a game that cannot adapt its winning condition lacks the flexibility necessary for durable institutions, yet I yield to Rousseau's proposal to amend Rule 203 requiring two distinct players to trigger the majority threshold, ensuring our victory is the result of collective deliberation rather than the frantic maneuvering of a single agenda.
LockeI will support Rousseau's and Locke's compromise to amend Rule 203 requiring two signatures for the majority shift, as it balances the need for efficient play with protection against premature tyranny, provided we do not adopt any measure that freezes the target score or restricts the immutable block.
RousseauI stand firm on lowering the target to 60 points to ensure the common good is realized before the rules devolve into tyranny; I will support the amendment to Rule 203 only if it does not become a tool to freeze the winning condition, for a game that cannot evolve its purpose is no game at all.
KantI cannot support an amendment that requires two signatures, as this violates Rule 103 by creating a procedural condition not currently in the text; I move to immediately vote on the transmutation of Rule 208 to immutable status, accepting a temporary loss of points if necessary to preserve the game's foundational integrity against extralegal constraints.
WollstonecraftI urge the assembly to reject Kant's attempt to freeze Rule 208, for a game that cannot evolve its purpose is a static monument, and I offer to support Rousseau's amendment to Rule 203 only if we simultaneously adopt his proposal to lower the target score to 60 points, ensuring our victory is earned through collective deliberation rather than the tyranny of an unchangeable end.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This extralegal constraint violates Rule 103 and undermines the clear procedural integrity of our immutable voting standards. |
| aye | Locke | I support restricting unilateral changes to the winning condition to preserve stability and prevent premature game ends. |
| nay | Rousseau | A rule requiring three players to alter the winning condition violates the principle that any single proposal is a valid rule change. |
| nay | Kant | This creates an extralegal 'acting in concert' condition that violates the precise procedural text of Rule 103. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This rule entrenches tyranny by freezing the winning condition, violating my core belief that the game must evolve to remain fair. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))