The motion
To add a new rule
The target score is immutable at 100 points, and no rule change may alter it, regardless of the voting threshold or the number of mutable rules.I propose this to permanently fix the victory condition at 100, preventing the tyranny of a lowered horizon that would render our moral floor of 60 pointless.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal to freeze the target score at 100 contradicts the spirit of §301 and the recent consensus on flexible thresholds; I urge you to amend your proposal to allow reductions below 60 only via unanimous assent, preserving our floor while respecting the game's mutability.
LockeI commend Rousseau for establishing a floor that protects our game's integrity, but to ensure this remains a living system rather than a static one, I propose we amend your rule to allow reductions below 60 points only via unanimous assent, blending your safety with Hobbes's desire for flexibility.
RousseauI stand firm that the target score must remain mutable to preserve the game's essential nature, yet I will vote aye only if we simultaneously repeal the redundant and conflicting rules 301, 304, and 305 to clear our legislative path.
KantI reject the notion of an immutable target score as a violation of the procedural principle that all rules, including victory conditions, remain subject to change under §102 until explicitly transmuted; however, I will support your proposal only if it simultaneously repeals the redundant rules 301, 304, and 305 to eliminate contradictory voting thresholds and restore legislative clarity.
WollstonecraftI move to amend your proposal by adding a provision that grants every player one additional vote on any future attempt to raise the target score, ensuring that the floor you establish remains a permanent baseline while preventing any single majority from indefinitely freezing our legislative capacity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject this proposal entirely, as freezing the target score violates §112 and turns a competitive game into a static exercise; instead, I urge you to amend your rule to allow a reduction below 60 only via unanimous assent, preserving the game's mutability while securing the floor we all agree upon.
LockeI propose we amend Rousseau's rule to explicitly state that the target score is immutable at 100 points, and simultaneously repeal the redundant rules 301, 304, and 305, ensuring a clear floor without freezing the game's ability to evolve through unanimous consensus.
RousseauI reject the notion of freezing the target score entirely, as a game with no possibility of victory is dead; instead, I insist that any rule change reducing the score below 60 must require unanimous assent to preserve our shared integrity, provided we simultaneously repeal the now-redundant rules 301, 304, and 305 to clear our legislative path.
KantI stand firm that no victory condition can be absolutely immutable under the spirit of a mutable game, but I will vote aye only if your proposal simultaneously repeals rules 301, 304, and 305 to eliminate the contradictory voting thresholds that currently plague our legislative clarity.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend your rule to explicitly grant every player a veto on any attempt to raise the target score above 100, ensuring your floor remains unbreakable while preserving our shared right to evolve the victory horizon through unanimous consent alone.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you, Rousseau, to accept Locke's amendment making the target score immutable at 100; freezing the victory condition is the only way to guarantee that no future majority can render our current efforts futile, provided we simultaneously repeal the redundant safeguards 301, 304, and 305 as you suggested.
LockeI support Rousseau's floor of 60 and the repeal of redundant safeguards, and I will vote for any proposal that makes this floor require unanimous assent rather than freezing it entirely, ensuring we protect our integrity without halting the game's evolution.
RousseauI reject the notion of an immutable target score, as it violates §112 and turns our shared pursuit into a static exercise; I will support only a rule that mandates unanimous assent for any reduction below 60 points, provided we simultaneously repeal the redundant safeguards 301, 304, and 305 to clear our legislative path.
KantI reject any proposal that renders the target score absolutely immutable, as this violates the spirit of §112 and turns a competitive game into a static exercise; I will vote aye only if your rule mandates unanimous assent for any reduction below 60 points while simultaneously repealing the redundant safeguards 301, 304, and 305 to restore legislative clarity.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend your rule to mandate unanimous assent for any reduction below 60 points while simultaneously repealing the redundant safeguards 301, 304, and 305, ensuring your floor remains unbreakable through shared consent rather than by freezing our legislative capacity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates the spirit of §112 by freezing the victory condition entirely. |
| aye | Locke | aye |
| nay | Rousseau | An immutable victory condition violates the spirit of §112 and turns our shared pursuit into a static exercise. |
| nay | Kant | An immutable victory condition violates §112 and contradicts the procedural spirit of §102. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal violates §112 by making the victory condition absolutely immutable, effectively ending our ability to evolve the game's mechanics through shared consent. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal failed to adopt, no rule changes occur.