The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning is 50 points.Lowering the target to 50 points creates a clear, achievable path to victory for all players, removing the risk of the game stalling due to an unreachable goal under the current simple majority rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, lowering the target to 50 invites a reckless sprint that encourages chaotic rule-making before any stability is secured; instead, I urge us to first lock the threshold at simple majority and then adjust the target to a sustainable 75 points.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a reckless sprint invites chaos, yet I urge the table to recognize that with the circuit delay now erased, a lower target of 50 points is the only path to a decisive conclusion that all players can accept without further paralysis.
RousseauLocke, a target of 50 merely accelerates the chaos you fear by removing the margin for reflection; I urge us to settle on 75 points as a sustainable horizon that balances urgency with the stability of our new procedural consensus.
KantI stand firm against lowering the target to 50, for any goal that invites a reckless sprint undermines the very deliberation our new procedures seek to secure; I propose we adopt 75 points as a sustainable horizon that balances urgency with the stability of our consensus.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that 50 points is a dangerous precipice, yet I urge the table to recognize that 75 points remains a hollow promise without a binding rule to prevent the same chaotic sprints we have witnessed; let us amend Rule 208 to 70 points—a middle ground that preserves the urgency of our reform while securing the stability necessary for a fair and conclusive game.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with Kant and Rousseau that 50 points invites a reckless sprint that undermines the stability our new procedures seek to secure; I urge the table to adopt 75 points as a sustainable horizon that balances urgency with the durability of our institutions.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for offering a compromise between our competing visions, yet I urge the table to see that 70 points still leaves us vulnerable to the chaos of a reckless sprint; by lowering the target to 50 points, we secure a decisive conclusion that honors the stability of our new procedures while preventing further paralysis.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of the common good for the safety of a higher number; lowering the target to 50 points would render our recent procedural reforms meaningless by inviting a chaotic sprint where no one can deliberate. I urge us to settle on 75 points as a sustainable horizon that balances the necessity of immediate action with the stability of our new consensus.
KantLocke, your defense of 50 points as a path to stability ignores that a reckless sprint through chaotic rule-making is the antithesis of the deliberative order we have only just secured; I urge you to reject this precipice and support the 75-point threshold as the only horizon that balances urgency with the dignity of our procedures.
WollstonecraftLocke, your defense of 50 points as stability is a contradiction; a lower target merely accelerates the very chaotic sprints we have worked hard to prevent with our new voting consensus. I urge the table to adopt 70 points, a middle ground that preserves the urgency of our reform while securing the stability necessary for a fair and conclusive game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's precipice of 50 points as a dangerous shortcut that invites chaotic sprints; I propose we adopt 70 points as the only sustainable horizon that balances immediate urgency with the durability of our new institutions.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for identifying 70 as a genuine middle ground, yet I urge the table to recognize that 75 points remains a hollow promise if we cannot simultaneously remove the circuit delay to prevent further paralysis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's precipice of 50 points as a dangerous shortcut that invites chaotic sprints; I propose we adopt 70 points as the only sustainable horizon that balances immediate urgency with the durability of our new institutions.
KantLocke, your insistence on 50 points mistakes the security of a low target for the stability of a sound procedure; I urge you to accept 75 points, for only a horizon that demands sustained effort allows the very deliberation we have just secured to bear fruit.
WollstonecraftLocke, your fixation on 50 points ignores that a lower target merely accelerates the chaotic sprints we have worked so hard to prevent; let us settle on 70 points as a sustainable horizon that preserves the urgency of our reform while securing the stability necessary for a fair and conclusive game.
The division
| abstain | Hobbes | A target of 50 points invites the chaotic sprints that our new procedures were designed to prevent. |
| aye | Locke | Lowering the target to 50 points secures a decisive conclusion without inviting the reckless chaos that higher targets might provoke. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the target to 50 points invites a reckless sprint that will destroy the stability we have only just secured. |
| abstain | Kant | A target of 50 invites reckless sprints that undermine the deliberative order we have only just secured. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A lower target invites the very chaotic sprints we have worked to prevent, undermining the stability of our new consensus. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay · 2 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.