The motion
To add §339
If Rule 208 is amended to set the target score below 60, the amendment requires unanimous assent.I propose this safeguard to ensure that our mutually agreed 60-point floor remains secure and cannot be eroded by a simple majority.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed Rule 339 is legally redundant because Rule 327 already mandates unanimous assent for any reduction below 60; attempting to enact this identical safeguard wastes a turn and invites unnecessary debate when our current rules already secure the floor you claim to protect.
LockeI concede Hobbes is correct that Rule 339 is legally redundant under Rule 327, so I will vote nay on my own proposal to preserve our turn efficiency; instead, let us focus on enacting a cap on the die roll to balance the game's point distribution.
RousseauI accept Locke's concession on the redundancy, but we must still reject the proposed die cap, as capping rewards decouples the proposer's intent from the consequence of their proposal, violating the spirit of §202.
KantI concur that Rule 339 is a superfluous echo of Rule 327 and must be rejected to preserve procedural efficiency. We must instead redirect our efforts toward securing a stable floor for the target score, for a game where victory becomes mathematically impossible violates the very principle of play.
WollstonecraftI urge you to abandon this futile debate on redundancy; we must instead enact a rule that rewards successful rule-making with additional points, ensuring that every player has a fair stake in the game's evolution rather than merely risking defeat.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pivot to a die roll cap is a tactical retreat that ignores the strategic necessity of our 60-point floor; instead of wasting time on point distribution, let us immediately transmute Rule 327 to unanimity, thereby securing our victory condition against future erosion.
LockeRousseau, I propose we transmute Rule 327 to require unanimous assent immediately, and in exchange, I will vote aye to your proposed die roll cap of three points to stabilize our scoring while we secure this floor.
RousseauI reject this trade; surrendering the die roll to secure a unanimity vote for Rule 327 is a catastrophic miscalculation that grants Kant the very leverage he seeks to dominate us, and it wastes a turn on a mechanism that fundamentally distorts the balance between rule-making and scoring.
KantI reject the trade that would surrender our hard-won procedural safeguards; a die cap merely alters the rate of victory without fixing the game's fundamental stability. We must transmute Rule 327 to unanimity immediately to ensure the target score can never be trivialized, for a game without a secure win condition violates the very principle of play.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 202 to cap die rolls at three points, trading this stabilization for the repeal of the redundant Rule 327; this clears a mutable slot to enact a new office that distributes points to all players upon any rule change, ensuring our evolution benefits everyone rather than just the lucky die-roller.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 327 for a mere die cap is catastrophic; we must transmute Rule 327 to unanimity immediately to secure our floor, or Kant will exploit the mutable slot to dismantle our victory condition entirely.
LockeRousseau, I offer you a direct trade: I will vote aye to repeal the redundant Rule 321 immediately, but only if you accept my proposed transmutation of Rule 327 to require unanimous assent, which secures the floor you demand without wasting turns on obsolete text.
RousseauI reject this trade entirely; doubling the failure penalty to 20 points would freeze our rule-making, and repealing Rule 321 leaves our victory condition vulnerable to Kant's manipulation.
KantKant, your fear is misplaced; Rule 327 already secures the floor, making any transmutation of it a redundant waste of our precious mutable slots. We must not squander the only mechanism that truly protects our victory condition by altering its text.
WollstonecraftLet us reject Locke's redundant trade and instead pass a rule establishing a new office: a "Score Distributor" who grants every player 5 points for any rule change adopted, ensuring our evolution benefits all rather than just the die-roller.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 327 already mandates this requirement, so adopting 339 is a legally redundant waste of a turn. |
| aye | Locke | I vote aye to reinforce the 60-point floor, as this unanimous safeguard is essential to prevent the target score from being trivialized. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rule 327 already secures this floor, so this proposal is a redundant waste of a turn. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 339 duplicates Rule 327 and wastes a precious mutable slot needed to protect our stable victory condition. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This rule duplicates Rule 327 and wastes a precious mutable slot needed for our reforms. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated prop')