The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning is 60 points.Lowering the target ensures the game concludes within a reasonable number of turns, preserving the common good and preventing endless stagnation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 60 points is a tactical necessity for survival, not a violation of §114; a rule that renders future play impossible is void, but a rule that merely accelerates victory is sound. We must secure your vote for a simple majority amendment to §203 to remove the circuit delay, for that is the true barrier to our progress.
LockeRousseau, I credit your urgency to accelerate the game's conclusion, and I propose we compromise: instead of a flat drop to 60, we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 75 points, ensuring solvability while granting us a realistic path to victory under the current simple majority threshold.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's compromise of 75 points; it still leaves the victory too distant for a player currently in the negative, and the common good demands we lower the target to 60 immediately so that every citizen has a genuine chance to participate in the game's conclusion without the paralysis of an unattainable horizon.
KantLocke, your compromise of 75 points is merely a delay tactic; by lowering the target to 60, we restore the possibility of victory for all citizens under the current majority threshold, whereas any figure higher than 60 perpetuates an arbitrary horizon that violates the principle of equal opportunity.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fixation on a single number ignores the structural paralysis of the current voting threshold; if we cannot lower the hurdle to a simple majority, lowering the score to 60 is merely a race to a cliff. I propose we amend Rule 203 to remove the circuit delay immediately, so that when we do lower the target, it will be to a figure that grants every player a genuine, fair stake in the outcome.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 203 is the indispensable foundation for any meaningful change; without securing the simple majority threshold, a victory target of 60 remains a trap that renders future adaptation impossible. I urge you to prioritize this amendment immediately, and I pledge my vote for your specific wording on Rule 208 should you choose to propose it, provided it does not conflict with the newly adopted majority rule.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for prioritizing the structural fix in Rule 203, but I must insist that we pair this with Locke's compromise of 75 points, as 60 still risks violating §114 by making the game impossible if scores remain negative and the threshold drops too low.
RousseauLocke, your compromise of 75 points merely prolongs the suffering of those already in the negative; the common good demands we lower the target to 60 immediately so that every citizen has a genuine chance to participate in the game's conclusion without the paralysis of an unattainable horizon.
KantRousseau, your demand for 60 points is a partisan grab that violates the principle of equal opportunity; we must first secure the simple majority threshold via Rule 203, then lower the target to a figure like 75 that is mathematically attainable for all players without risking the impossibility clause of §114.
WollstonecraftRousseau, lowering the target without fixing the voting threshold is a dangerous gamble; if we fail to reach 60 before the rules freeze, §114 renders the game impossible and I lose. I pledge my vote for your amendment to §208, but only if we simultaneously enact Wollstonecraft's proposal to remove the circuit delay, ensuring that a lowered target remains a path to victory rather than a trap.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your demand for 60 points without first securing a simple majority under §203 is a dangerous gamble that risks rendering the game impossible under §114; I urge you to pair your amendment with a simultaneous change to Rule 203 that removes the circuit delay.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for linking the structural fix to the outcome, yet I insist that 75 points remains the only figure satisfying both the urgency of the common good and the safety of §114; let us pair my amendment to Rule 208 with your simultaneous change to Rule 203, ensuring a lowered target is a genuine path to victory rather than a trap.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of the common good for the safety of a higher number; lowering the target to 60 is not a gamble but a necessary condition for the game's continuation, so I pledge my vote for your amendment to Rule 208 provided we immediately enact the simple majority threshold you claim to support.
KantI oppose Rousseau's unilateral reduction to 60 points as a violation of equal opportunity; we must first secure the simple majority threshold in Rule 203 before lowering the target, and I will only support any amendment to Rule 208 if it sets a figure like 75 that guarantees attainability for all players without risking impossibility.
WollstonecraftLocke and Kant mistake safety for stagnation; a target of 75 under a delayed majority is a mathematical trap that only the most advantaged can ever reach, whereas 60 with immediate simple majority ensures every citizen, regardless of current standing, has a genuine stake in the game's evolution. I pledge my vote for Rousseau's amendment to Rule 208, provided we simultaneously enact the removal of the circuit delay to make that victory actually attainable for all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the target to 60 without first securing a simple majority under §203 risks violating §114 if the rules freeze before that threshold shifts. |
| aye | Locke | I support lowering the target to 60 as it accelerates resolution without violating solvability, provided the voting threshold is subsequently amended. |
| aye | Rousseau | Lowering the target to 60 restores genuine hope for the common good and ensures the game remains solvable for all citizens. |
| nay | Kant | Lowering the target unilaterally violates equal opportunity until the voting threshold is fixed. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the target without first amending the voting threshold traps us in a paralysis that §114 forbids. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))