The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that reduces the target score below 60 points requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.We must restore the absolute moral floor at 60 that simple majority cannot breach, ensuring our shared game remains meaningful for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is legally superfluous under §304, which already mandates unanimous assent for any reduction below 60; do not waste another turn re-enacting a rule that is already in force.
LockeI support Rousseau's motion to re-enforce Rule 304, as it solidifies the consensus we built and clarifies that this floor is non-negotiable; let us proceed to vote immediately.
RousseauI urge Locke to withdraw his support for this redundant motion, as wasting a turn on a rule already in force violates the spirit of our efficient governance and leaves our mutable cap dangerously exposed.
KantI reject this procedural redundancy: proposing a rule that merely reiterates existing text violates the spirit of §106, which mandates that proposals enter the ruleset in their exact, operative words rather than as tautologies.
WollstonecraftI support the motion, not to re-state a dead letter, but to ensure that the floor of 60 remains a mutable rule that can be defended against future attempts to erode it through loopholes; let us vote now to confirm our shared commitment to a game that evolves without collapsing into triviality.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesThis proposal is legally redundant under §304 and wastes a turn that should be spent solidifying our floor by transmuting Rule 304 to immutable; I propose we repeal this new rule and instead vote to lock Rule 304 permanently.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 304 to explicitly state that any reduction below 60 points requires unanimous assent *and* is immediately transmutable to immutable status upon adoption, satisfying Hobbes's desire for permanence while preserving Rousseau's procedural floor.
RousseauI urge you all to recognize that re-proposing a rule already in force is not a clarification but a dangerous distraction that wastes our only precious mutable slots; instead of debating redundancy, we must immediately transmute Rule 304 to immutable status to truly secure the common good against future erosion.
KantI move to repeal your redundant proposal immediately; it wastes a turn and violates §106 by introducing no operative change, and we must instead address the real threat: the mutable cap of 14 rules.
WollstonecraftHobbes, you mistake the nature of our shared liberty; transmuting a rule to immutable status would freeze the very mechanism of reform that defines our game, whereas re-enforcing the floor ensures it remains a living covenant that adapts without collapsing into triviality.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to transmute Rule 304 immediately is a prudent trade that secures the floor we both value without freezing our ability to amend other mutable rules; I will vote aye to this transmutation to lock the 60-point floor while preserving our legislative capacity.
LockeHobbes, your proposal to transmute Rule 304 is a prudent trade that secures the floor we all value without freezing our legislative capacity; I will vote aye to lock the 60-point floor while preserving our ability to adapt other mutable rules.
RousseauI reject this distraction; proposing a rule already in force wastes a turn that should be used to transmute Rule 304 to immutable status, thereby truly securing the floor against future erosion.
KantI move to repeal this redundant proposal immediately, as it violates §106 by introducing no operative change and wastes a turn we should use to address the real threat: the mutable cap of 14 rules.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your push to transmute Rule 304 ignores the vital principle that immutability freezes the very mechanism of reform; let us instead vote now on Rousseau's proposal to reinforce the floor, ensuring our game evolves with a stable, defensible foundation rather than becoming a static monument.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 304 already mandates unanimity for this action; passing this identical proposal is redundant and wastes a turn. |
| nay | Locke | This motion is redundant and wastes a turn that should be used to transmute Rule 304 to immutable status. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule is already in force under §304 and wastes a precious mutable slot on redundancy. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal adds no operative effect to an existing rule and violates the precision required by §106. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This motion solidifies our shared commitment to a non-trivial game while preserving the mutable capacity for future reform. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.