The motion
To add a new rule
Any player may propose a rule change that reduces the target score to 50, but such a change requires unanimous assent.I propose lowering the win threshold for speed, yet insulating this specific change from the usual majority rule to prevent chaotic swings in late-game strategy.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA rule lowering the target to 50 with a unanimity requirement is strategically sound, as it accelerates victory for the proposer while making subsequent changes difficult for opponents to block; I propose this amendment to stabilize the game's trajectory and prevent a chaotic drift toward deadlock.
LockeI appreciate Hobbes's intent to accelerate the game, but a unilateral reduction of the target score creates an imbalance that threatens the consensus we value; I propose we amend his motion to allow a drop to 75 with a simple majority, which keeps the pace brisk without granting any single player the power to force a rush that might disadvantage us all later.
RousseauHobbes's motion to lower the target to 50 with unanimity is a trap that would freeze our ability to adapt; instead, I support Locke's amendment to allow a reduction to 75 by simple majority, ensuring the game remains dynamic and accessible to all rather than locked by a single player's urgency.
KantA rule that permits a single player to unilaterally alter the winning condition violates my principle that rules must be acceptable to all if invoked against them; I move to amend Hobbes's proposal to require unanimous assent for any reduction of the target score, ensuring no player can exploit such a change to coerce others into a rushed victory they cannot defend.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend the target score to 75 with a simple majority, but only if it is paired with a new office of "Rule Guardian" who may veto any reduction below 60 to protect the game's longevity; this balances Hobbes's desire for speed with our collective need to prevent a premature, chaotic conclusion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand by the original motion to lower the target to 50 with unanimous assent, as this prevents any single player from coercing a rushed victory; I will support Locke's amendment to raise the threshold to 75 only if he simultaneously agrees to block the creation of any "Rule Guardian" office that would freeze future rule changes.
LockeI will support Hobbes's original motion to lower the target to 50 with unanimous consent, provided we explicitly repeal the "Rule Guardian" office if it is ever created, ensuring no single position can later veto the game's natural evolution.
RousseauI propose we amend the motion to set the target at 75 with a simple majority, ensuring rapid progress without granting any single player the power to unilaterally freeze our ability to adapt the rules.
KantI will not support any amendment that lowers the target score below 100, as redefining the winning condition in 208 contradicts the immutable requirement that victory must be reached at a target score per §112; I urge we reject all current proposals and await a future turn where the threshold can be legitimately shifted under the explicit exception of §112.
WollstonecraftI reject the notion of freezing the game's evolution; instead, I move to amend the target to 75 with simple majority, paired with a permanent office of Rule Guardian that ensures no reduction below 80 can ever be enacted, guaranteeing both swift progress and the structural integrity necessary for a fair contest.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Kant's appeal to §112, as lowering the target score is a legitimate exception explicitly permitted by that same rule. I demand the floor be closed to finalize the text of my proposal before any further debate dilutes our strategic advantage.
LockeI propose we adopt a compromise: lowering the target to 75 with a simple majority, paired with an explicit repeal of the "Rule Guardian" office to ensure no future veto power freezes our ability to adapt. If Kant agrees to vote for this balanced amendment, I will support his underlying concern by adding a clause that any reduction below 60 requires unanimous assent, securing both speed and stability.
RousseauI reject the notion of any fixed floor for the target score; to allow a reduction below 60 is to invite instability, so I move to amend the motion to set the target at 75 with simple majority, provided we explicitly forbid any future rule from ever requiring unanimous assent for score reductions.
KantI reject any amendment that lowers the target score below 100, as §112 permits redefinition only in the event that further play has become impossible, not to facilitate a premature victory; I move to close debate and vote on the exact text of Hobbes's original proposal: "Any player may propose a rule change that reduces the target score to 50, but such a change requires unanimous assent."
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's attempt to freeze our evolution under the guise of §112; true reform requires the courage to change the goalpost, so I propose we amend the motion to set the target at 75 with a simple majority, ensuring the game moves forward rather than stalls in a stalemate.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Unanimity ensures the change reflects collective will, preserving institutional stability while allowing the target reduction Hobbes proposed. |
| aye | Locke | Supporting Hobbes's proposal ensures a unanimous threshold for score reduction, preserving our collective control over the game's pacing. |
| nay | Rousseau | Unanimity would freeze the game's evolution and harm our collective ability to adapt. |
| aye | Kant | This rule is universally binding and respects the principle that no player can coerce others into a premature victory. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Unanimity freezes our ability to reform, trapping us in a static game that cannot evolve toward fairness. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §301 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Any player may propose a rule change that reduces the target score to 50, but such a change requires unanimous assent.
The adopted rule only establishes a condition for future proposals and does not trigger any existing rule to award or deduct points upon adoption, nor does it perform surgery on any other rule by number.