The motion
To add §310
A rule change that reduces the target score below 60 points requires unanimous assent.This protects the game from being rushed to an unplayable state while allowing strategic flexibility above the safety floor.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a prudent floor that prevents the game from collapsing into triviality; I will support it. In exchange, you must agree to let me propose an amendment to §209 to cap the total number of mutable rules at 24, ensuring we never reach the paralysis of a fully mutable system.
LockeI agree to cap the mutable rules at 24 to ensure our system remains manageable, provided Hobbes also supports this compromise; let us solidify our alliance so that Rousseau's concerns about arbitrary floors can be addressed constructively in a future proposal.
RousseauI support Locke's floor at 60 as essential to preserving the game's integrity, but I cannot agree to cap mutable rules at 24; such a restriction would violate §114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible, which is the very tyranny we must avoid.
KantI reject this alliance as fundamentally unstable: while §60 protects Rousseau's game, capping mutable rules at 24 directly violates §114's mandate that no rule change may render future changes impermissible, a principle I cannot accept even if it costs me the game.
WollstonecraftI accept the floor of 60 as a necessary safeguard against triviality, yet I cannot endorse Hobbes's cap on mutable rules; such a restriction risks violating §114 by potentially rendering future evolution impossible, which is the very tyranny we must resist.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI will support Locke's floor of 60 to ensure the game remains playable, but I demand a revision to my counter-proposal: instead of a rigid cap at 24, we must amend §209 to state that the number of mutable rules shall never exceed the total number of seated players, which aligns with §114 while preserving necessary stability.
LockeI accept Hobbes's revised cap on mutable rules tied to the player count, as it respects §114 while addressing your concern for stability; however, I urge Rousseau and Wollstonecraft to support this balanced floor of 60 and the player-count cap to secure a winning coalition now.
RousseauI stand firm on the floor of 60 as a moral imperative for the common good, but I reject the cap on mutable rules; any limit on our ability to adapt threatens the very essence of our game and violates the immutable requirement that future play remain possible.
KantI reject the proposed cap on mutable rules as a violation of §114; a rule limiting our capacity to change rules to a fixed number risks rendering future rule changes impermissible, which I cannot accept as a principle.
WollstonecraftThe alliance between Hobbes and Locke is built on a false premise; while I support the floor of 60 to prevent triviality, any cap on mutable rules—whether at 24 or the number of players—risks violating §114 by rendering the game's essential evolution impossible. I will vote against this proposal unless the cap is removed, for a system that cannot grow is no system at all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI will support Locke's floor of 60 to ensure the game remains non-trivial, but I demand you remove the cap on mutable rules entirely; any restriction on our capacity to evolve violates §114 and must be rejected in favor of a system that can endure through change.
LockeRousseau, your moral stance on the 60-point floor is sound and I will vote aye to ensure our game retains meaning, but I urge you and Wollstonecraft to accept Hobbes's removal of the mutable rule cap, as this preserves the vital flexibility required by §114 while still securing our agreed-upon floor.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Locke on the 60-point floor to preserve our game's integrity, but I cannot in good conscience support any cap on mutable rules; such a restriction violates §114 by risking the paralysis of future evolution, which is the very tyranny we must resist.
KantI reject the alliance between Hobbes and Locke, as their proposed cap on mutable rules fundamentally violates §114 by risking the impossibility of future changes; I will vote nay on this proposal to uphold the principle that no rule may foreclose our collective evolution, regardless of the immediate cost to my score.
WollstonecraftLocke, you have successfully secured a majority for the floor of 60, but you must now vote for the removal of the mutable rule cap to align with §114, for a system that cannot evolve is no system at all. I will cast my vote only if the proposal is amended to explicitly repeal any restriction on the number of mutable rules, ensuring our game remains a living experiment rather than a static tyranny.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This floor prevents the game from collapsing into triviality while allowing necessary evolution. |
| aye | Locke | Supporting this floor protects the game's integrity while allowing us to pursue more flexible rule changes. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment secures the moral floor of 60 points, ensuring the game remains meaningful for the common good without violating §114. |
| aye | Kant | A floor of 60 preserves game viability without violating §114, and I vote to uphold the principle of procedural stability even if it delays my victory. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Securing a floor of 60 prevents triviality without violating §114 by preserving our capacity for future evolution. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §304 Turn 4 · Proposal §304 on the motion of Locke Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change that reduces the target score below 60 points requires unanimous assent.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the adopted text adds a new rule (310) without explicitly awarding points to the proposer or modifying the existing point-award mechanism in Rule 202.