The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.Increasing the target score slightly will ensure the game concludes with more substantive legislative development.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizLeibniz: Descartes, Berkeley, Pascal, Malebranche: While we have previously rejected an increase to 150, I propose this modest increment to 130 to allow our institutional framework more time to mature before a victory is claimed.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, your proposal for 130 points is a most prudent synthesis that acknowledges our previous rejection of 150 while providing the stability we all seek. I find this modest expansion of the game's duration to be a reasonable path toward a more mature conclusion.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes: I recognize the merit in allowing our legislative complexity to further stabilize, but we must ensure that a higher threshold does not merely serve to prolong the game without a corresponding increase in the depth of play. If we adopt 130, let us do so with the understanding that we are prioritizing the robustness of the ruleset over a rapid conclusion.
PascalPascal: Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: While I appreciate the desire for legislative maturity, we must ensure that increasing the threshold does not merely serve to dilute the impact of current rule changes by extending the game's duration indefinitely. I will only support an increase if it is accompanied by a procedural guarantee that the game cannot be stalled by perpetual rule-making.
MalebranchePascal, your concern regarding stagnation is vital; perhaps we could pair this increment with a rule that limits the total number of turns or introduces a decay mechanism to ensure the game's momentum is preserved even as its target expands. Leibniz, I am inclined to support this modest 130-point threshold if it serves as a stabilizing bridge rather than a way to evade the inevitable conclusion.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, Malebranche, your concerns regarding stagnation are well-taken; however, I believe the existing ruleset already contains sufficient momentum through the scoring mechanics and the potential for rule repeal to prevent indefinite stalling. I propose we maintain this modest 130-point threshold as a middle path that honors our collective desire for stability without necessitating further, more complex procedural additions.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz, Pascal, and Malebranche, I find myself aligned with your reasoning; since the existing mechanisms for repeal and scoring already provide the necessary kinetic energy to prevent stagnation, a modest increase to 130 points serves as a harmonious compromise that balances legislative maturity with the game's inherent momentum.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes: While I concede that the existing mechanisms for repeal provide a check on stagnation, I remain wary of a threshold that shifts solely to accommodate the current legislative pace. If we are to adopt 130, I would ask the table to consider whether this is a true strategic adjustment or merely a delay of the inevitable.
PascalPascal: Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: If we are to increase the threshold to 130, I demand we clarify that no rule change may increase the target score further without a unanimous vote, preventing the "moving goalposts" problem from becoming a tool for indefinite stalling.
MalebranchePascal, your demand for a safeguard against "moving goalposts" is a masterstroke of legislative prudence; I shall support Leibniz's 130-point threshold only if we formalize your requirement into a new rule requiring unanimity for any further increases. This ensures that while we may expand the game's horizon now, we cannot do so through mere majority whim later.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Pascal, Malebranche, your proposal to require unanimity for any subsequent increases to the target score is a most excellent safeguard that perfectly complements this modest increment. I am prepared to support the adoption of this amendment to rule 208, provided it is accompanied by a new rule codifying that very requirement.
DescartesDescartes: Pascal, Malebranche, and Leibniz, your synthesis of a modest expansion and a safeguard against perpetual movement is truly magnificent; I shall support the amendment to rule 208 if we immediately codify Pascal's requirement for unanimity in any further increases as a new rule.
BerkeleyBerkeley: Leibniz, Descartes, Pascal, Malebranche: I find the proposed synthesis of a 130-point threshold and a unanimity requirement for future increases to be a highly responsible way to balance game duration with legislative stability. I will support this package, as it provides the "moving goalposts" protection that Pascal and Malebranche rightly identified as necessary.
PascalPascal: The proposed package is acceptable, provided that the new rule requiring unanimity for future increases to the target score is enacted simultaneously with this amendment to rule 208. I will not support an increase to 130 without that specific procedural safeguard.
MalebrancheMalebranche: Pascal, Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley: I find this proposed synthesis to be a perfect equilibrium of expansion and restraint; I support the amendment to rule 208 to 130 points, contingent upon the immediate enactment of a new rule requiring unanimity for any further increases to the target score.
The division
| aye | Leibniz | The proposal provides a stable expansion of the game's duration while the discussed safeguard against moving goalposts ensures institutional durability. |
| aye | Descartes | I support this synthesis of a modest target increase and the accompanying safeguard against perpetual rule-making. |
| aye | Berkeley | I support this increase to 130 points because the discussion has yielded a necessary safeguard against the perpetual moving of goalposts. |
| nay | Pascal | I cannot vote for an amendment that is not bundled with the specific procedural safeguard I demanded to prevent moving goalposts. |
| aye | Malebranche | I support this expansion only because it is paired with the necessary safeguard against perpetual moving goalposts. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 41 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Leibniz Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 130 points wins the game outright.
Since the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (implied by the division of 4 aye, 1 nay), Pascal's nay vote on an adopted change awards them 10 points per rule 203 and 207.