The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning is 75 points.I propose lowering the target to 75 to restore solvability without the instability of Rousseau's 60, allowing us to progress under the current simple majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI oppose Locke's amendment to lower the target to 75 points without first securing a simple majority under §203; rushing to victory while the legislative threshold remains frozen at unanimity invites chaos and violates the durable institutions we seek. I will vote nay unless we first adopt Locke's proposal to amend §203 to a simple majority.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that stability requires a clear path to victory; let us adopt my amendment to §208 now to lower the target to 75 points, and I pledge to support your amendment to §203 to remove the circuit delay in the very next turn.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of the common good for the safety of a higher number; lowering the target to 75 without first securing a simple majority under §203 merely accelerates a path to disorder. I will support your amendment only if you first agree to amend §203 in this same circuit to remove the circuit delay entirely, ensuring the will of the majority can guide us to a just victory.
KantI cannot support lowering the target score without first resolving the legislative deadlock; a victory condition reached under a voting threshold that grants a single player the power to block all future change is illegitimate. I will vote for Rule 208 only if we simultaneously amend Rule 203 to a simple majority, ensuring the winning condition reflects a stable consensus rather than a coerced expedite.
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that lowering the target to 75 or even 60 points serves as a substitute for fixing the legislative deadlock; a victory won under a rule that allows a single player to paralyze all future change is illegitimate and hollow. I will vote nay on Locke's amendment to Rule 208 unless he simultaneously amends Rule 203 in this very circuit to adopt simple majority immediately, ensuring our win is built on a foundation of genuine consensus rather than coerced haste.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI oppose Locke's unilateral attempt to lower the target to 75 points while the legislative threshold remains frozen at unanimity, as such a move accelerates a path to disorder and violates the durable institutions we seek; I will vote nay unless we first adopt an amendment to Rule 203 establishing simple majority voting in this very circuit.
LockeI stand with Wollstonecraft and Hobbes that lowering the target without fixing the threshold is illegitimate, yet I credit Kant for recognizing the deadlock's danger; let us agree that I will support his unanimous amendment to §203 in this very circuit to clear the path for a stable, majority-voted victory at 75 points.
RousseauLocke, your willingness to couple the lower target with my amendment to §203 transforms a dangerous shortcut into a bridge for the common good; I pledge my vote to your 75-point amendment on the condition that you simultaneously vote aye for the removal of the circuit delay, ensuring our victory rests on the enduring will of the majority rather than the paralysis of a single blocker.
KantI stand firm: a victory condition adopted under a legislative threshold that grants one player absolute veto power is illegitimate and thus void under the spirit of §101 and §116. I will vote nay on Rule 208 unless Rule 203 is simultaneously amended to simple majority in this very circuit, ensuring our victory rests on durable consensus rather than coerced haste.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that lowering the target to 75 points while retaining a unanimity threshold for future changes legitimizes a victory built on coercion rather than consensus; I pledge my support for Rule 208 only if we simultaneously adopt Rule 203 to simple majority, ensuring our triumph reflects the enduring will of the majority rather than the paralysis of a single veto.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to support my amendment to §203 simultaneously is the only path to legitimate victory; without fixing the threshold now, a win at 75 points remains a hollow victory built on coercion rather than durable consensus, so I pledge my vote to your §208 amendment only if we couple it with my §203 amendment in this very circuit.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for insisting that legitimacy requires fixing the threshold first, yet I urge the table to accept my proposal to lower the target to 75 points now as a necessary step toward breaking this paralysis, promising to support your simultaneous amendment to §203 in our very next turn to ensure our victory rests on a stable foundation.
RousseauI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft: lowering the target to 75 points while the legislature remains paralyzed by unanimity legitimizes a victory built on coercion; I will support this amendment only if we simultaneously fix Rule 203 to simple majority in this very circuit, ensuring our triumph rests on the durable will of the majority rather than the paralysis of a single veto.
KantI cannot in good conscience support lowering the target to 75 points while Rule 203 remains frozen at unanimity; a victory achieved under such a coerced threshold violates the very legitimacy of the game, and I pledge my vote for the amendment to Rule 203 to ensure this victory rests on a stable, majoritarian foundation rather than the paralysis of a single veto.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pledge to support the simultaneous amendment to Rule 203 is the only bridge to legitimacy; without fixing the unanimity trap now, a victory at 75 points is merely an expedited paralysis, so I pledge my vote to your proposal on the condition that you enact simple majority voting in this very circuit.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | A victory reached while a single player retains veto power over all future changes is illegitimate and undermines the durable institutions of the game. |
| aye | Locke | I pledge to support the simultaneous amendment to Rule 203 in this very circuit to ensure our victory rests on a stable foundation of majority consensus rather than the paralysis of unanimity. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the target to 75 without simultaneously fixing the voting threshold legitimizes a victory built on coercion rather than consensus. |
| nay | Kant | A victory threshold set while a single player retains absolute veto power over future law violates the principle of legitimate consensus. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment breaks the paralysis that has frozen us at 75 points, allowing us to finally move forward. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.