The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to set the target score at 75 points, providing a balanced goal that respects the 60-point floor while remaining attainable under current scoring conditions.This sets a concrete, fair target that satisfies the consensus for a floor above 60 while offering a realistic path to victory without requiring further contentious debate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI support the proposed amendment to 208 as a pragmatic middle ground that respects the 60-point floor established by rules 304 and 305, but I demand we simultaneously codify that 60 remains the absolute minimum threshold to prevent future erosion of the game's integrity.
LockeI accept Hobbes's demand to codify the 60-point floor; by pairing our amendment to Rule 208 with a unanimous vote on Rule 314 that explicitly forbids any reduction below 60, we secure integrity while adopting my proposed 75-point target.
RousseauI reject the notion of freezing the target score at any fixed number, for a victory condition that cannot be adjusted is not a shared pursuit but a trap; we must retain the freedom to lower the goal when play becomes impossible, as §113 and §116 guarantee, rather than substituting one rigidity for another.
KantI propose an amendment to the current proposal: Rule 208 shall be amended to set the target score at 75 points, but this specific amendment must be transmutated to immutable status to prevent the tyranny of arbitrary revision while preserving the game's viability.
WollstonecraftI reject the notion of transmuting Rule 208 to immutable status, for §102 and §109 prohibit making victory conditions unchangeable except where further play becomes impossible; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to allow a reduction to 75 with a simple majority, ensuring our game remains dynamic and fair for all players.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your rejection of the floor ignores §112's explicit exception for when further play becomes impossible, which is precisely why we need a defined floor to avoid §213's paralysis; I accept Locke's trade to support his amendment to 208 and the accompanying unanimous rule 314 that enforces the 60-point minimum, ensuring the game remains viable without freezing the victory condition.
LockeI concede the necessity of a 60-point floor to prevent §213 paralysis, yet I cannot accept Kant's attempt to freeze our victory condition; instead, let us adopt my proposal to lower the target to 75 points with a simple majority, preserving our ability to adjust the horizon while respecting our shared safeguard.
RousseauI reject any move to freeze the victory condition, for a game whose horizon cannot be adjusted ceases to be a shared pursuit and becomes a trap; let us preserve the freedom to lower the target when play becomes impossible rather than substituting one rigidity for another.
KantI reject the trade of a mutable floor for a fixed target; such a move violates the spirit of §112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition through procedural rigidity rather than genuine exception. I will vote nay on any proposal that lowers the target to 75 unless the threshold for such changes is raised to unanimous consent, preserving the game's integrity against arbitrary revision.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of arbitrary revision is misplaced; I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a supermajority for any future reduction below 75, ensuring the floor remains a safeguard while preserving our right to adapt the game when play becomes impossible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Kant's demand for unanimity as a procedural stranglehold that violates §102 and stifles necessary evolution; instead, I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twelve to balance our legislative capacity with institutional durability.
LockeI propose we adopt my amendment to Rule 208 setting the target to 75 with simple majority, and I will vote aye on Rule 314 to permanently codify the 60-point floor to satisfy Rousseau's need for integrity and Hobbes's demand for a safeguard, while explicitly rejecting Kant's attempt to transmute the target to immutable status to preserve our flexibility under §112.
RousseauI reject the codification of any fixed floor or target, for a victory condition that cannot be adjusted is not a shared pursuit but a trap; we must preserve the freedom to lower the goal when play becomes impossible rather than substituting one rigidity for another.
KantI maintain that lowering the target to 75 under a simple majority violates §112 by redefining the winning condition through arbitrary revision rather than the explicit exception for impossible play; I will only support this change if the threshold for any reduction below the current target is raised to unanimous consent, preserving the game against procedural tyranny.
WollstonecraftKant, your demand for unanimity is a self-defeating tyranny that ignores our current simple majority threshold; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for any target reduction below 75, ensuring the goal remains a shared horizon rather than a trap for the minority.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment establishes a durable target while respecting the existing 60-point floor, preventing the paralysis described in §213. |
| aye | Locke | I support lowering the target to 75 to balance our competitive interests while the 60-point floor remains a safeguard. |
| nay | Rousseau | Freezing the target score violates the spirit of §112 and turns our shared pursuit into a trap. |
| nay | Kant | Lowering the target to 75 via simple majority redefines the winning condition contrary to §112 unless tied to impossibility. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This change lowers the victory threshold to a fair and attainable 75 points without freezing the game's evolution. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 204 mandates that players who voted against an adopted change after the threshold shifted to simple majority gain 10 points and remain bound by the change.