The motion
To add a new rule
Players may not propose a rule change that increases the target score above 100 points, as such a change renders the winning condition unreachable and halts play.Preventing an impossible victory condition ensures the game remains playable and honors the spirit of the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal contradicts §114, which forbids changes that render future rule changes impermissible; I urge you to amend this to allow raising the target, as a rigid ceiling stifles the game's evolution.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly citing §114, and I propose we amend Rousseau's rule to allow raising the target up to 120 points, provided such a change does not render further rule changes impermissible, thereby preserving both flexibility and solvability.
RousseauI propose we amend the rule to cap the target score at 120 points rather than prohibiting changes entirely; this preserves the game's solvability while preventing the target from being raised so high that victory becomes impossible for the common good.
KantI stand with Rousseau on the principle that a game unable to conclude is a failure, but I reject the arbitrary ceiling of 120 points proposed by Locke as an unjustified modification of the winning condition. The target score must remain exactly 100, as any other value violates the precise procedure of Rule 106 which forbids altering the adopted text of the winning condition; therefore, I vote nay on any proposal that changes the target to any number other than 100.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that a game cannot fulfill its purpose if the goalposts are moved so high that victory is impossible for the common good; let us amend the proposal to cap the target at 120 points, ensuring play remains solvable while preventing Hobbes from freezing the rules in stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI maintain that §114 forbids rendering *any* future rule change impermissible, making a hard cap on the target score a violation; I will only support a rule that allows raising the target provided play remains possible, or I oppose the amendment entirely.
LockeI propose we amend the rule to require that any target adjustment must be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the number of turns needed to reach it, ensuring victory remains attainable without arbitrarily capping the score at 120.
RousseauI stand with Wollstonecraft that a cap at 120 preserves solvability for the common good, yet I reject Locke's demand to reduce turns, as it unfairly accelerates victory for those with more turns; let us agree on a hard cap at 120 points, which ensures the game remains playable without needing to alter the turn mechanics.
KantI reject Locke's proposal to link target adjustments to turn reductions, as conflating the winning condition with procedural mechanics violates Rule 106's requirement for precise, unaltered text; the target must remain a distinct, immutable concept unless explicitly redefined by a clear amendment.
WollstonecraftI urge you, Rousseau, to accept Locke's amendment linking target increases to turn reductions; this ensures the common good is never sacrificed for arbitrary stagnation while guaranteeing that every player retains a genuine path to victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI oppose the proposed cap at 120 points as a violation of §114; a hard ceiling renders future adjustments impermissible, whereas my proposal to allow target increases provided play remains solvable preserves the game's adaptability and aligns with the spirit of durable institutions.
LockeI credit Hobbes for distinguishing between a solvability cap and a permanent freeze, so I propose we refine Rousseau's amendment to allow raising the target to 120 *only if* the rules explicitly ensure victory remains attainable, satisfying both §114 and the common good.
RousseauI stand with Wollstonecraft that a cap at 120 points preserves solvability for the common good, yet I reject Locke's demand to reduce turns, as it unfairly accelerates victory for those with more turns; let us agree on a hard cap at 120 points, which ensures the game remains playable without needing to alter the turn mechanics.
KantI reject any amendment that conflates the target score with procedural mechanics, as such muddying of the text violates the precision required by Rule 106; I will only support a proposal that leaves the target score as a distinct, unaltered concept, regardless of whether it is capped or adjustable, provided the procedure for its definition remains exact.
WollstonecraftI urge Rousseau to reject Locke's conditionality, for tying victory to procedural adjustments only creates a fragile equilibrium where the game's purpose evaporates at the first sign of dissent; a firm cap at 120 points guarantees the common good remains the ultimate horizon, ensuring no player can ever again render the game's conclusion impossible by sheer obstinacy.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This hard cap violates §114 by rendering future adjustments to the winning condition impermissible. |
| aye | Locke | I support capping the target at 100 to prevent the game from stalling, while we negotiate the details of solvability. |
| aye | Rousseau | A hard cap protects the common good from a target so high that victory becomes impossible. |
| nay | Kant | A hard cap violates §114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible and breaches §106's demand for precise, unaltered text. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A hard cap prevents Hobbes from freezing the game, ensuring the common good remains attainable for all players. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Players may not propose a rule change that increases the target score above 100 points, as such a change renders the winning condition unreachable and halts play.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted text does not contain the awarding mechanism; therefore, no points are awarded or deducted, and no other rules are surgically amended.