The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.Lowering the target from 75 to 60 restores the common good by ensuring victory remains achievable for the player currently closest to it, preventing the game from stalling indefinitely.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 60 is a tactical blunder that ignores the current stalemate; with no one near a win and Rule 203 now fixed at simple majority, such a change merely accelerates a chaotic end rather than securing a stable victory. PASS
LockeI credit Rousseau for prioritizing the common good, but I urge us to adopt my compromise of 75 points to balance solvability with the need for meaningful strategic play.
RousseauI stand with Locke that a target of 75 points preserves the dignity of our struggle while ensuring the common good is not left to the whims of a sudden, chaotic collapse; let us not abandon the principle of sustained effort for a premature victory.
KantKant, Rousseau: while the urgency of the common good is palpable, lowering the target to 60 without fixing the threshold first invites instability; however, I am willing to accept 75 points as a reasonable compromise that balances solvability with the integrity of our legislative process. PASS
WollstonecraftRousseau, your 60 points are too hasty and risk a chaotic conclusion before our reforms take root; I propose 75 as the just middle ground that ensures victory remains a meaningful achievement rather than a mere statistical accident, securing your support for this balanced target. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal for 75 points is a prudent compromise, yet it ignores the immediate reality that the current stalemate renders even 100 points unreachable without further reform; I propose we amend Rule 203 first to allow majority rule without a delay, then adopt a target of 60 to ensure a swift resolution before the system calcifies.
LockeI stand with Hobbes that we must first secure the legislative threshold in §203 before fixing the target score; only then will a compromise of 60 points serve as a stable path to resolution rather than a chaotic precipice.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's conditional delay; the common good demands immediate action to prevent the game from calcifying into an unresolvable stalemate, and a target of 75 points remains too high to guarantee a meaningful conclusion under the current conditions.
KantI reject the notion that a lower target resolves the underlying procedural deadlock; reducing the goal to 60 or even 75 points merely accelerates an unstable conclusion without addressing the fact that we still cannot enact the reforms necessary to make such a victory meaningful. We must first secure the permanent simple majority threshold to ensure that future rules are binding, for only then can a lowered target serve as a genuine solution rather than a chaotic escape from our legislative failures. PASS
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that a lower target can cure a procedural paralysis; without first amending Rule 203 to eliminate the circuit delay, any victory we claim will be illegitimate and fleeting. We must secure the power to legislate freely before we rush to a finish line that offers us no reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 60 without first eliminating the circuit delay in Rule 203 is a strategic error that invites chaos; I propose we amend Rule 203 to remove the delay immediately, then adopt a target of 75 to ensure a stable and meaningful conclusion.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that our procedural paralysis renders any target moot, yet I insist we cannot afford the luxury of waiting; let us amend Rule 203 to remove the circuit delay immediately, then adopt a target of 75 points to ensure a swift and stable resolution for all.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this conditional delay; the common good demands immediate action to prevent the game from calcifying, and we must secure a lowered target now rather than waiting for a procedural fix that may never come.
KantI reject the notion that a lower target resolves the underlying procedural deadlock; reducing the goal to 60 or 75 points merely accelerates an unstable conclusion without addressing the fact that we still cannot enact the reforms necessary to make such a victory meaningful. We must first secure the permanent simple majority threshold to ensure that future rules are binding, for only then can a lowered target serve as a genuine solution rather than a chaotic escape from our legislative failures.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to pair a lowered target with the immediate abolition of the circuit delay reveals a dangerous disconnect: how can we claim to serve the common good while trapping us in a legislative paralysis that makes any victory hollow? I urge you to accept the 75-point target now so we may finally enact the reforms necessary to make this win meaningful.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the target without first securing the legislative power to enact it invites a chaotic end that serves no one. |
| nay | Locke | A target of 60 points is too low to ensure meaningful play, and we should instead adopt Locke's compromise of 75 points to balance solvability with strategic depth. |
| aye | Rousseau | Lowering the target to 60 points is an urgent necessity to break our current paralysis and secure a meaningful conclusion for the common good. |
| nay | Kant | Lowering the target does not resolve the procedural paralysis that renders any victory hollow without fixing Rule 203 first. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the target without abolishing the circuit delay is a hollow victory that leaves us trapped in legislative paralysis. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.