The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning is 40 points.We must lower the target to 40 to ensure the common good is realized before the game stagnates or becomes impossible to win.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's precipitous cut to 40 points; lowering the target without first stabilizing our legislative process invites chaos rather than order. Let us first ensure Rule 203 functions reliably before we rush toward a premature end to the game.
LockeI credit Rousseau for recognizing that our current legislative paralysis renders the existing target of 100 points functionally unreachable, yet I urge the table to reject 40 as too precipitous; let us compromise on 60 points, which secures a viable winning condition while respecting the recent consensus on lowering the threshold before the next vote.
RousseauI stand with Locke that 60 points offers a reasonable balance between the urgency of the common good and the stability required for fair play; rushing to 40 risks a chaotic finish that undermines the very justice we seek to preserve.
KantI reject both 40 and 60 as arbitrary thresholds that violate the principle that rules must be clear and determinate before application; we must first enact a rule explicitly setting the target score to 80 points, a figure that balances the urgency of resolution with the dignity of our legislative process, before any vote can be validly taken.
WollstonecraftI commend Kant's caution regarding arbitrary thresholds, yet his proposed 80 points remains a barrier to justice for those currently trailing; let us adopt Locke's compromise of 60 points, for it offers a tangible horizon without sacrificing the dignity of our deliberation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this precipitous drop to 40 points as a dangerous shortcut that invites chaos rather than order; let us adopt Locke's compromise of 60 points, which secures a viable winning condition without sacrificing the stability required for fair play.
LockeI stand with Wollstonecraft and Rousseau on 60 points as the necessary compromise between urgency and stability, but I urge the table to reject Kant's proposal for 80 points, as it merely perpetuates the paralysis that brought us here; let us adopt Locke's middle ground to finally move forward.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's demand for 80 points as a new barrier to the common good; while we honor his caution, the urgency of our collective survival requires us to adopt Locke's compromise of 60 points immediately, for any higher number merely prolongs the paralysis that threatens to render our deliberations meaningless.
KantKant, you demand 80 points as a principled median, yet your proposal is the very arbitrariness you condemn; the 60-point compromise offered by Locke and Rousseau is a stable, determinate procedure that we can all accept immediately, so I will vote against your new barrier to ensure the game concludes under a rule we have all already endorsed.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's retreat to 80 points as an arbitrary barrier that ignores the reality of our scores; 60 points offers the only viable path to justice that balances the need for resolution with the dignity of our struggle, so I urge the table to adopt Locke's compromise immediately.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your compromise of 60 points fails because it ignores the current reality: we are tied at -20 with no one near the finish line, so lowering the target merely accelerates a victory that remains equally out of reach. I urge the table to reject this adjustment as premature; we must first stabilize Rule 203's threshold to ensure future votes are binding before we alter the conditions of the game itself.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that our scores make this adjustment premature, yet I insist we must act now to break the deadlock of endless debate on targets; I propose we compromise on 65 points, a middle ground that respects the urgency of ending this stalemate while avoiding the precipice of 40, ensuring all trailing players retain a genuine path to victory under a stable procedural framework.
RousseauI reject Locke's compromise of 65 points as a mere stalling tactic; the true path to the common good is the immediate adoption of 60 points, for any higher threshold prolongs our suffering and denies the trailing players any genuine hope of victory.
KantI reject the compromise of 60 or 65 points as arbitrary thresholds that fail the test of impartiality; we must establish a clear, determinate rule of 80 points to balance the urgency of resolution with the dignity of our legislative process before any vote can be validly taken.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's retreat to 80 points as an arbitrary barrier that ignores the reality of our scores; 60 points offers the only viable path to justice that balances the need for resolution with the dignity of our struggle, so I urge the table to adopt Locke's compromise immediately.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the target to 40 points without addressing the current paralysis in our legislative process invites chaos rather than order. |
| nay | Locke | Lowering the target to 40 is too precipitous and ignores the recent consensus on finding a stable middle ground. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the target to 40 points creates a new arbitrary barrier that ignores the reality of our current scores and risks premature chaos. |
| nay | Kant | A target of 40 is an arbitrary threshold that fails the test of impartiality and undermines the dignity of our legislative process. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the target to 40 points without adjusting the mechanics of play is an arbitrary barrier that ignores the reality of our current scores. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 55 (char 54))