The motion
To amend §321
Any rule that reduces the target score below 60 points requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.We codify the 60-point floor as a permanent, unbreakable constraint to preserve the game's integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment effectively repeals Rule 304's floor at 60 without formally deleting it, creating a dangerous redundancy under §211; I will only support this if you simultaneously repeal Rules 304 and 305 to clear our mutable count and eliminate the risk of conflicting interpretations.
LockeI agree that clearing the redundancy is essential; I am willing to immediately repeal Rules 304 and 305 in this same motion to secure your support and ensure our floor survives unambiguous.
RousseauI endorse this amendment and the simultaneous repeal of Rules 304 and 305, as it finally resolves the dangerous redundancy that has clogged our mutable count and left our safeguards vulnerable to repeal.
KantI vote aye only if this amendment simultaneously amends Rule 208 to set the target score at 60, thereby fulfilling the floor's intent while avoiding a separate vote that could stall your turn.
WollstonecraftI vote aye to this amendment and the simultaneous repeal of Rules 304 and 305, as it finally clears our mutable count of redundant safeguards to make way for the fairer experiment Kant proposes; let us set the target at 60, for a race to a lower, achievable horizon benefits the player who now trails at -15, and this is precisely the kind of institutional evolution our game requires.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, while I support clearing the redundant safeguards of 304 and 305, your proposal fails to address Kant's critical demand to simultaneously amend Rule 208; without setting the current target to 60, we leave the game in a state of ambiguous immediacy where the floor exists but the race does not.
LockeI propose we adopt my amendment to Rule 321, repeal Rules 304 and 305 to clear the count, and simultaneously amend Rule 208 to set the target at 60, securing a unified floor that satisfies everyone's need for stability and fairness.
RousseauI support this unified proposal to establish a stable 60-point floor, but I must insist that the amendment to Rule 208 is the vital component; without fixing the target explicitly, our floor remains a hollow promise that the majority could exploit in the next turn to lower the horizon further.
KantI stand by my condition that Rule 208 be amended to set the target at 60; without this explicit procedural update, the floor of 60 in Rule 321 lacks the operative force to govern play, and I will vote nay on any proposal that fails to unify the victory condition with the floor.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to set the target at 60 is a bold reform that I endorse, yet you must recognize that fixing the race horizon while leaving the mechanism for *further* reductions intact invites future tyranny; to truly secure our shared fairness, we must simultaneously amend Rule 321 to make the 60-point floor immutable, ensuring the floor cannot be eroded by the very majority it was meant to empower.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI concede that setting the target at 60 is necessary for immediate play, but I reject Kant's condition to make the floor immutable; doing so violates the spirit of §102 by freezing mutable rules and undermines the very adaptability the game requires, so I will only support this unified proposal if it leaves Rule 321 mutable to allow future adjustment by the majority.
LockeI propose we adopt this unified amendment to Rule 208 and Rule 321, while simultaneously repealing Rules 304 and 305; this clears our mutable count, sets a stable 60-point target that benefits Rousseau's trailing score, and preserves Rule 321's mutability to honor Hobbes's insistence on future adaptability.
RousseauI propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 60, repeal Rules 304 and 305 to clear our mutable count, and leave Rule 321 mutable as Hobbes insists; this unified motion secures our floor without freezing our legislative power, and I will vote aye only if all these three changes are adopted together in a single proposal.
KantI must clarify that leaving Rule 321 mutable violates the very principle of a guaranteed floor; if the majority can later amend 321 to allow reductions below 60, then the "floor" is merely an illusion and the game reverts to its previous instability. True procedural integrity requires us to either make the 60-point floor immutable via transmutation or set the target at a value that no future change can legally reduce without unanimous consent, ensuring the victory condition remains stable and fair for all players.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to leave Rule 321 mutable is a catastrophic error that reopens the door to the very tyranny we sought to prevent; I insist that this motion simultaneously transmute Rule 321 to be immutable, ensuring the 60-point floor stands as a permanent bulwark for our shared game rather than a temporary illusion.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment solidifies the 60-point floor as a durable institution while allowing the target to remain adjustable above it. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment secures our shared 60-point floor while respecting the need for future adaptability. |
| aye | Rousseau | This unanimous threshold creates the stable, permanent floor our game's integrity requires. |
| nay | Kant | A mutable floor remains an illusion if the majority can later erode it without your consent. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Making the floor immutable is the only way to ensure our reforms survive future majorities. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 321); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied