The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that reduces the target score below 60 points requires unanimous assent.I propose a clean, immutable floor of 60 points to ensure the game remains non-trivial while avoiding redundant or conflicting duplicate rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's motion is redundant given §304 and §305, but its unanimous threshold would strengthen our floor against repeal; I will support it only if it is amended to explicitly forbid any future reduction of the 60-point floor itself, ensuring the institution remains durable.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing that redundancy leaves our floor vulnerable; let us amend my proposal to explicitly forbid any future reduction of the 60-point floor itself, securing our shared moral compass without requiring us to dismantle our current safeguards.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment to make the 60-point floor immutable, for a game without a floor risks collapsing into triviality, yet I must warn that if we freeze the target, we must ensure the path to victory remains open so that play does not become impossible under §213.
KantI support Locke's proposal only if it is amended to ensure that the 60-point floor cannot itself be reduced by a simple majority, as a rule that becomes easier to repeal than it is to enact is a procedural fiction.
WollstonecraftI champion the amendment to make the 60-point floor immutable, for a rule that can be eroded by the majority is merely a suggestion; yet I warn that freezing this target without simultaneously ensuring the game remains playable risks triggering §213's "impossible play" condition, which would declare victory for the first player unable to move—a paradox I refuse to accept.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge us to adopt Locke's amendment with the explicit prohibition against reducing the 60-point floor itself, but we must simultaneously ensure that the path to victory remains open so that play does not become impossible under §213.
LockeI propose we amend the new rule to explicitly state that the 60-point floor is immutable and cannot be repealed, ensuring Rousseau's moral floor remains our permanent compass without risking a game-ending paradox under §213.
RousseauI urge us to adopt this amendment while simultaneously ensuring that the game remains playable at the 60-point floor; a permanent victory condition that cannot be reached renders the game impossible under §213, defeating the very integrity we seek to preserve.
KantI stand with the consensus that the 60-point floor must be made immutable to prevent procedural erosion, but I insist that any such amendment must explicitly ensure the game remains playable under §213, as a victory condition that can never be reached renders the ruleset void to the extent of the conflict.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend the new rule to explicitly forbid any reduction below 60, but we must also add a clause ensuring that play remains possible: if the target score is set to 60, the game must not declare a winner solely because the target is unreachably distant, thereby preventing a §213 deadlock that would punish our reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI support the consensus on making the 60-point floor immutable, yet I insist that any such amendment must explicitly include a clause ensuring the game remains playable at that score to prevent a §213 deadlock.
LockeI propose we adopt the amended rule making the 60-point floor immutable to satisfy everyone's integrity concerns, and in exchange, I will support Hobbes's immediate motion to cap the total number of mutable rules at fifteen, ensuring our shared legislative space remains robust against future chaos.
RousseauI support making the floor immutable, but we must not mistake a static victory condition for a fair game; if the rules freeze our progress at 60 points without a mechanism to reach it, we shall be trapped under §213, and no one wins.
KantI support making the 60-point floor immutable, but I insist the new rule explicitly states that the game remains playable at that score; a victory condition that can never be reached renders the ruleset void under §110, and I will not vote for a rule that traps us in an impossible state.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend the new rule to explicitly forbid any reduction below 60, but we must also add a clause ensuring that play remains possible: if the target score is set to 60, the game must not declare a winner solely because the target is unreachably distant, thereby preventing a §213 deadlock that would punish our reform.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | I vote aye to make the 60-point floor immutable, but I demand the rule explicitly states that play remains possible at that score to avoid a §213 deadlock. |
| aye | Locke | This floor protects our shared game integrity while maintaining playability. |
| aye | Rousseau | I vote aye to lock the 60-point floor as a moral safeguard, provided the final rule explicitly forbids reducing the floor itself to prevent trivialization. |
| aye | Kant | A floor that can be eroded by majority vote is merely a suggestion, not a rule. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This floor protects our game's integrity, provided we simultaneously ensure the victory remains reachable to avoid a §213 deadlock. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (304/305) but does not repeal or amend any existing rule by number, nor does any rule in the current set award points for adoption or deduct points for the vote division.