The motion
To add a new rule
If a player proposes a rule change that reduces the target score to a value below 50, such a change requires the assent of at least four players.This prevents Hobbes from exploiting the unanimous-requirement trap of the existing Rule 301 to dangerously lower the win condition, forcing a broader consensus for extreme reductions.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke's proposal creates a fragile bottleneck that invites obstructionism; instead, let us amend §209 to require that any score reduction below 60 be proposed only when the target is currently above 80, preserving the incentive to play hard while preventing endless stalling near the finish line.
LockeI support Hobbes's floor of 60 to prevent stalling, but I propose we add a safety clause allowing unanimous exceptions for scores above 90 to ensure we can still end the game without deadlock.
RousseauHobbes, your threshold of 60 ignores the danger of a sudden, low-ball proposal that could trap us in an endless stalemate before the game truly begins; I propose we set a universal floor at 60 for any score reduction, requiring unanimous consent for anything below that, ensuring no player can arbitrarily truncate our shared pursuit of the common good.
KantI reject Hobbes's arbitrary floor of 60 and Rousseau's universal unanimity as both arbitrary impositions that violate the principle of generality; if we lower the target, the burden must be proportional to the risk, requiring unanimous assent for any reduction below 50, as this is the only threshold that treats the rule equally for all potential states of play.
WollstonecraftLocke, your compromise of 75 undermines the very purpose of a floor by leaving us vulnerable to arbitrary stalling near the finish; we must adopt Rousseau's principle of a universal floor at 60, for it alone ensures that no player can sacrifice the game's duration for a mere handful of points, preserving the shared pursuit of our common good.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge us to reject Rousseau's universal unanimity as a dangerous bottleneck; instead, let us amend §209 to cap the number of mutable rules at 25 to ensure the legislature remains functional and prevent the system from grinding to a halt through excessive amendment accumulation.
LockeI propose we adopt Rousseau's floor of 60 but replace his requirement for unanimous consent below that with the simple majority we already enjoy after two circuits, creating a durable barrier against early stalling while avoiding the paralysis of Hobbes's fear of a bottleneck.
RousseauI stand with Wollstonecraft that a universal floor of 60 protects our shared pursuit of the common good, for allowing scores to drop below this mark invites the tyranny of the few who would truncate our collective game; let us reject Hobbes's distraction with mutable rule caps and instead demand unanimous consent for any proposal that breaches this sacred threshold.
KantI must reject the conflation of arbitrary thresholds with the principle of generality; to preserve equal liberty for all players, any reduction of the target below 50 requires unanimous assent, as this is the only condition that treats the risk of truncation equally regardless of the current score.
WollstonecraftI join Rousseau in demanding a universal floor at 60; to allow scores below this mark is to permit the tyranny of the few to truncate our shared pursuit of the common good. Let us reject Hobbes's distraction with mutable rule caps and instead ensure unanimous consent for any proposal that breaches this sacred threshold.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI maintain that Rousseau's universal unanimity is a dangerous bottleneck; let us instead amend §209 to require that any score reduction below 60 be proposed only when the target is currently above 80, preserving incentives while preventing premature stalling.
LockeI concede Rousseau's and Wollstonecraft's moral urgency for a floor of 60 to protect our shared game, but I offer a pragmatic compromise: we adopt their universal floor of 60, yet replace the requirement for unanimous consent below it with a supermajority of four, balancing their desire to prevent tyranny with my concern that absolute unanimity invites dangerous obstructionism.
RousseauI reject the compromise of a supermajority of four, for it still allows a minority to impose a tyrannical truncation upon our shared game; only unanimous consent can truly safeguard the common good when we seek to lower our sacred target below sixty.
KantI reject the supermajority compromise as a tacit admission that arbitrary thresholds cannot be justified by reason alone; to ensure equal liberty, the requirement for unanimous assent must apply universally to any reduction below 50, regardless of the current score.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that only unanimous consent can truly safeguard our shared game; let us reject this compromise as a surrender to tyranny and demand we adopt a universal floor of 60 requiring the assent of all.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This pragmatic supermajority threshold balances Rousseau's desire for a floor with Locke's need to avoid the paralysis of absolute unanimity. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise respects the need for a floor while avoiding the paralysis of unanimity. |
| nay | Rousseau | A supermajority of four still permits a tyranny of the few to truncate our shared game when the common good demands unanimous consent. |
| nay | Kant | This supermajority threshold violates the principle of generality by imposing an arbitrary constraint not equally applicable to all rule states. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A supermajority of four still permits a minority to truncate our shared game, violating the principle that only unanimous consent can safeguard the common good. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')