The motion
To amend §301
Any player may propose a rule change that reduces the target score to 50, but such a change requires unanimous assent. Any player may propose a rule change that increases the target score, but such a change requires unanimous assent.We must protect the common good by preventing a permanent race to the bottom, ensuring the game remains a fair contest of all five of us rather than a sprint for the quickest finisher.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we amend [301] to allow target increases via simple majority while retaining unanimity for decreases, creating a natural floor that protects us from destabilizing the game without requiring your unanimous consent on every point.
LockeRousseau's proposal to symmetrize target changes ignores the strategic reality that a sudden increase to 150 could freeze the game indefinitely, while Hobbes correctly identifies that unanimity for decreases provides a necessary safety net; let us adopt Hobbes's amendment: allow increases to 150 via simple majority, but keep decreases to 50 requiring unanimous assent to prevent destabilization.
RousseauI reject Hobbes's asymmetry; allowing increases by simple majority merely empowers the majority to render the game unwinnable for the rest of us, violating the spirit of fairness. We must require unanimous assent for any target change, whether up or down, to ensure the victory condition remains a shared horizon rather than a tool of tyranny.
KantI vote aye on the floor but urge a procedural safeguard: any amendment allowing target increases must explicitly preserve Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the win condition as "impossible play," lest the majority extinguish the game rather than extend it. Without this textual anchor, a simple majority could vote us into a state where victory is logically unreachable, violating the immutable spirit of competition.
WollstonecraftThe current asymmetry in §301 is a trap; by allowing increases via simple majority, we invite the majority to set a target so high that victory becomes functionally impossible, violating the spirit of Rule 112. I propose we amend §301 to require unanimous assent for *any* change to the target score, ensuring that the horizon of our competition remains a shared promise rather than a weaponized variable.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau's insistence on unanimity for increases ignores the strategic necessity of a flexible horizon; I propose we adopt Hobbes's amendment to allow increases to 150 by simple majority, provided Kant's textual anchor preserving Rule 112 is included to prevent logical extinction.
LockeI will support a compromise that allows target increases via simple majority up to a reasonable cap (e.g., 120) while retaining unanimous assent for any decrease, satisfying Hobbes's need for flexibility and Rousseau's desire for a protective floor without freezing the game.
RousseauI reject any compromise that allows a simple majority to raise the target, for such power inevitably leads to a tyranny where the many conspire to make victory impossible for the few; we must maintain unanimous assent for all target changes to preserve the game as a shared endeavor rather than a tool of oppression.
KantI support Locke's cap but insist it must be codified within the proposal text itself, not left as an unwritten convention, to satisfy Rule 106's demand for exact wording; without this precision, the rule invites the very ambiguity that undermines our procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this compromise entirely; capping the target at 120 or 150 via simple majority merely codifies a tyranny where the majority can legally extinguish our hope for victory, violating the spirit of Rule 112. True fairness requires that we either share the risk of a lowered goal through unanimity, or retain the original floor of 50 with unanimous consent, preserving our shared horizon rather than allowing it to be weaponized.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI support Locke's cap of 120 as a reasonable middle ground that preserves the game's viability without demanding the impossible unanimity Rousseau insists upon. Let us proceed with this amendment, explicitly codifying the cap in the text to satisfy Kant's demand for precision under Rule 106.
LockeI support Locke's cap of 120 as a pragmatic balance that prevents the tyranny of infinite targets while respecting Rousseau's concern for a shared horizon; let us finalize the text to ensure this precise boundary satisfies Kant's demand for clarity under Rule 106.
RousseauI reject any cap on target increases, for a rule that allows the majority to set a victory horizon beyond reasonable reach is merely a legalistic disguise for extinguishing hope; we must demand unanimous assent for all changes to the target score, ensuring that the game remains a shared endeavor where victory is always a genuine possibility for every player.
KantI reject Locke's compromise because a rule allowing the majority to raise the target creates a logical trap where victory becomes impossible, violating the spirit of Rule 112; therefore, I will only vote for this amendment if the text explicitly codifies a hard ceiling that guarantees the game remains winnable for all players.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject any compromise that allows a simple majority to alter the target score, for such power inevitably converts our shared horizon into a weaponized variable that can legally extinguish hope; we must demand unanimous assent for all changes to preserve the spirit of Rule 112 and ensure victory remains a genuine possibility for every player.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal blocks the simple majority increases we need for strategic flexibility, leaving us trapped by Rousseau's absolute unanimity demand. |
| nay | Locke | I support Rousseau's unanimous threshold for decreases but oppose locking increases to unanimity, as that stifles the necessary flexibility the majority currently holds. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support unanimous consent for all target changes to prevent the majority from weaponizing the victory horizon. |
| nay | Kant | Unanimity for increases violates Rule 112 by allowing the game to become impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Unanimity protects the shared horizon from becoming a weaponized variable. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points while no rules are amended.