The motion
To add a new rule
The winning condition is not the first player to reach a target score, but rather the player who successfully amends Rule 208 to set the target score to 0.I seek to redefine the victory condition via the procedure the opponents have already normalized, thereby rendering their point accumulation irrelevant while adhering strictly to the current rules.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge Kant to withdraw this proposal; rewriting the winning condition violates §112's explicit prohibition against redefining victory away from a target score, and attempting to game our own termination clause invites a stalemated end where no one wins.
LockeKant, your proposal directly violates the immutable prohibition in §112 against redefining the winning condition, so I urge you to withdraw it immediately to avoid wasting our turns on an impossible change; however, if you are truly committed to altering the victory condition, I propose we amend §112 to allow a reduction to zero only if a player forfeits, ensuring we preserve the game's integrity while addressing your strategic concerns.
RousseauKant, you cannot simply amending Rule 208 to set the target to zero; under §112, the winning condition must remain a target score, and a target of zero would render the game trivially winnable on the very first roll, violating the spirit of fair play. Instead of pursuing an impossible change, let us focus on ensuring our 60-point floor remains secure so that the game remains meaningful for all of us.
KantI stand by my principled objection: §112 explicitly forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score, making your proposed amendment to Rule 208 legally void rather than merely difficult; therefore, we must focus our limited mutable rules on securing the 60-point floor to ensure the game remains meaningful for all players.
WollstonecraftKant, your attempt to weaponize §112 against us is a dangerous distraction; the true enemy is not the target score itself, but the tyranny of the majority that allowed it to be lowered to 75 in the first place. I move to amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at five and immediately repeal Rule 14, restoring the target to 100 and ensuring every player's stake in this shared experiment is secure.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your proposal is void under §112, so I urge you to withdraw it rather than waste our collective time on an impossible change. While I agree with Wollstonecraft that the current mutable cap of fourteen is excessive, I must insist that any reduction to five be paired with a unanimous repeal of Rules 304 and 305 to remove the redundant floor safeguards.
LockeKant, your proposal violates §112, but let's pivot: I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at 12 while simultaneously making the 60-point floor in Rule 208 immutable with unanimous consent, securing our integrity without wasting turns.
RousseauI reject any trade that dismantles our floor safeguards to merely expand the mutable cap, for such a move leaves our game vulnerable to trivialization by a future majority. We must secure the 60-point floor as immutable before expanding our legislative capacity, lest we sacrifice the very integrity we claim to cherish.
KantI reject Locke's offer to make the floor immutable only via unanimous consent, as that procedure would be unworkable without my participation; instead, I propose amending Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at nine and repealing Rules 304 and 305, securing the floor through a simple majority while ensuring the ruleset remains sufficiently mutable to prevent stagnation.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's attempt to weaponize the target score; rather than playing for zero, I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at six and make the 60-point floor in Rule 208 explicitly immutable, ensuring that our shared game remains a meaningful struggle for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your proposal is legally void under §112, so I urge you to withdraw it immediately rather than squandering our turn on an impossible change; meanwhile, I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at eight and repeal Rules 304 and 305, securing the floor through a simple majority while restoring legislative agility.
LockeKant, since your proposal to set the target to zero is void under §112, I propose we immediately amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at ten while simultaneously making the 60-point floor in Rule 208 immutable by unanimous consent, securing our shared integrity without wasting another turn on legal impossibilities.
RousseauKant, your proposal to set the target to zero violates §112, but I urge us to abandon this legal dead end and instead secure our 60-point floor as immutable before expanding the mutable cap any further.
KantI reject the notion of making the floor immutable via unanimous consent, as such a procedure would be unworkable without my participation; instead, I propose amending Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at nine and repealing Rules 304 and 305, securing the floor through a simple majority while ensuring the ruleset remains sufficiently mutable to prevent stagnation.
WollstonecraftKant, your proposal to set the target to zero is void under §112, so I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at six and make the 60-point floor in Rule 208 immutable, ensuring our shared game remains a meaningful struggle for all.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates the immutable prohibition in §112 and must be rejected. |
| nay | Locke | I reject this proposal because it directly violates the immutable prohibition in Rule 112 against redefining the winning condition away from a target score. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates the immutable prohibition in §112 against redefining the winning condition away from a target score. |
| abstain | Kant | This proposal is legally void under the immutable Rule 112, rendering the vote itself a waste of a turn. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal violates §112's immutable prohibition against redefining victory away from a target score, wasting our turn on an impossible change. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.