The motion
To amend §208
The winning condition is the first player to reach a target score of 60 points.We must secure the floor of 60 points directly in Rule 208 to ensure the victory condition remains meaningful and non-trivial for everyone.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 60 immediately nullifies the distinction between your floor and the victory condition, creating a trivial game where victory is merely the first rule reduction; I propose we instead amend Rule 208 to set the target at 60 points, allowing us to secure a non-trivial horizon while preserving the game's structural integrity.
LockeI acknowledge Rousseau's urgency for a lower target to accelerate victory, yet I propose we pair this reduction to 60 with an immediate repeal of Rules 304 and 305 to clear our mutable rule count, ensuring the floor becomes a permanent, non-trivial victory condition rather than a temporary constraint.
RousseauI urge you to reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305; dismantling our redundant safeguards to merely set a static floor of 60 reduces our shared game to a single, unchangeable victory condition, which violates the spirit of our mutable constitution and leaves us no room to adapt the target should the game stagnate.
KantI reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, as their removal would leave Rule 208's reduction to 60 unprotected from future majority vote, violating the principle that a mutable floor should not be dismantled to facilitate a trivial victory horizon. We must preserve the redundant safeguards to ensure the 60-point floor remains a permanent, inviolable constraint on our legislative power.
WollstonecraftI reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, for dismantling our redundant safeguards leaves Rule 208's reduction to 60 vulnerable to future majority erosion, violating the principle that a mutable floor must remain a permanent shield against trivialization.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305; their removal would leave Rule 208's reduction to 60 vulnerable to future majority erosion, violating the principle that a mutable floor must remain a permanent shield against trivialization.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 60 points while simultaneously repealing Rules 304 and 305; this codifies the floor permanently in 208, rendering the redundant safeguards obsolete and clearing our mutable rule count to allow future evolution of the game's structure.
RousseauI urge Kant and Wollstonecraft to see that Rules 304 and 305 are now redundant shadows; by repealing them alongside our amendment to Rule 208, we do not lose protection but rather elevate our floor to the immutable status of the victory condition itself, clearing our mutable count to preserve the game's future adaptability.
KantI reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, for their removal would leave Rule 208's reduction to 60 unprotected from future majority vote, violating the principle that a mutable floor should not be dismantled to facilitate a trivial victory horizon.
WollstonecraftI urge Kant to recognize that Rules 304 and 305 are now redundant shadows once Rule 208 explicitly codifies the 60-point floor; retaining them only bloats our mutable count without adding protection, so we must repeal them to preserve the game's future adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305; their removal would leave Rule 208's reduction to 60 vulnerable to future majority erosion, violating the principle that a mutable floor must remain a permanent shield against trivialization.
LockeRousseau, your fear of redundancy is unfounded if we simultaneously repeal 304 and 305; this clears our mutable rule count to allow future evolution while permanently codifying your 60-point floor in Rule 208, satisfying your need for a non-trivial horizon.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that Rules 304 and 305 are now redundant shadows; by repealing them alongside our amendment to Rule 208, we do not lose protection but rather elevate our floor to the permanent status of the victory condition itself, clearing our mutable count to preserve the game's future adaptability.
KantI reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305; their removal would leave the 60-point floor in Rule 208 unprotected from future majority erosion, violating the principle that a mutable floor must remain a permanent shield against trivialization.
WollstonecraftI urge Kant and Rousseau to see that Rules 304 and 305 are now redundant shadows once Rule 208 explicitly codifies the 60-point floor; retaining them only bloats our mutable count without adding protection, so we must repeal them to preserve the game's future adaptability.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Accepting the 60-point floor secures a non-trivial victory horizon while allowing us to clear redundant safeguards. |
| aye | Locke | I support raising the target to 60 to ensure a non-trivial game, paired with repealing redundant safeguards to clear our mutable rule count. |
| aye | Rousseau | Repealing these redundant safeguards clears our mutable count while codifying the 60-point floor, preserving the game's integrity and future adaptability. |
| nay | Kant | Adopting 60 as the victory condition while repealing 304/305 creates a mutable floor unprotected by higher-order safeguards, violating the principle of inviolable procedural limits. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Codifying the floor at 60 points now renders our redundant safeguards obsolete, clearing our mutable count to preserve the game's future adaptability. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 208 was amended to change the target score to 60, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for adopting a rule change or penalizes dissenters in this specific manner, so no score deltas or state deltas are applied.