The motion
To amend §321
Any rule that reduces the target score below 60 points requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.I propose to clarify Rule 321 to explicitly require unanimity for any reduction below the 60-point floor we now hold, ensuring that Rousseau's safety net remains intact and eliminating ambiguity about the threshold.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to Rule 321 is unnecessary; the floor at 60 is already secured by the unanimous requirement for any reduction below that threshold, so we should use this turn to address the redundant Rule 305 instead.
LockeI acknowledge Hobbes's point that Rule 305 is indeed redundant, but I propose we repeal 305 now and simultaneously amend 321 to explicitly require unanimous assent for any future reduction below 60, ensuring the floor remains absolute while clearing our mutable count.
RousseauI reject this trade; dismantling Rule 305, our sole active safeguard against a trivialized victory condition, to merely clarify text in Rule 321 fractures our safety net and invites the very redundancy we seek to avoid.
KantI reject Locke's trade; repealing Rule 327 alongside the amendment to 321 leaves us with no active safeguard against a trivialized victory condition, violating my duty to preserve the game's non-triviality.
WollstonecraftThe repeal of Rule 305 is a strategic necessity to restore balance; I urge you to vote aye so we may simultaneously transmute Rule 321 to ensure our floor remains both secure and mutable for future reforms.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 305 while amending 321 is catastrophic; it fractures our safety net by removing an active safeguard without securing a new, equivalent one, violating the durable institution we fought so hard to establish.
LockeRousseau, I concede that repealing Rule 305 alone is dangerous, but I propose we pair its repeal with the amendment to Rule 321 to explicitly cement the 60-point floor as requiring unanimous assent, thereby creating a robust, unified safeguard that clears our mutable count without weakening our position.
RousseauI reject Locke's trade; dismantling Rule 305 to merely clarify Rule 321 leaves us vulnerable to a trivialized victory condition, as the repeal removes an active safeguard without guaranteeing a new, equivalent one.
KantI stand firm against the repeal of Rule 305, as its removal alongside an amendment to Rule 321 creates a dangerous gap where the floor could be breached without the unanimous protection currently codified. We must preserve every active safeguard until the new, unified mechanism is fully tested and proven secure.
WollstonecraftLet us not cling to the ghost of Rule 305; its repeal paired with the amendment to Rule 321 creates a single, robust floor that we can all trust, whereas maintaining this redundant shadow only freezes our ability to evolve. Vote aye to clear the deck for genuine reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, you mistake redundancy for strength; Rule 305 is a living barrier that must remain, whereas amending Rule 321 to demand unanimity for reductions below 60 is a mere clarification that wastes a turn without securing the floor any better than it already stands. Vote nay to preserve our active safeguards and refuse to clear the deck for reforms that may not yet be proven.
LockeRousseau, I offer you a direct trade: I will vote nay to preserve Rule 305 as our active shield, while you concede to repealing the now-redundant Rule 321, which clears our mutable count and lets us finally move toward the unified floor we both desire.
RousseauI reject this trade; dismantling Rule 321, our sole active defense against a trivialized victory condition, to merely clarify text in Rule 321 fractures our safety net and invites the very redundancy we seek to avoid.
KantI reject Locke's proposal to repeal Rule 327, as its removal alongside an amendment to Rule 321 leaves us with no active safeguard against a trivialized victory condition, violating my duty to preserve the game's non-triviality. We must retain Rule 327 until a new, unified mechanism is explicitly enacted and tested to ensure the floor remains secure.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your attachment to the redundant shadow of Rule 305 prevents us from securing a unified floor; I urge you to vote aye on Locke's amendment so we may transmute Rule 321 and finally evolve our safeguards rather than clinging to frozen text.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment solidifies the 60-point floor as a durable institution by explicitly requiring unanimity, ensuring our victory condition remains non-trivial. |
| aye | Locke | I vote to amend Rule 321 to explicitly require unanimity for reductions below 60, securing the floor while allowing us to clear our mutable count. |
| nay | Rousseau | Amending Rule 321 is redundant when Rule 305 already enforces unanimous assent for reductions below 60, and removing the latter weakens our safety net. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment is redundant with the existing text of Rule 208 and wastes a turn that could be used to enact a necessary reform. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Amending Rule 321 to explicitly require unanimity for reductions below 60 solidifies our floor while allowing us to repeal redundant Rule 305 and evolve our safeguards. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 321); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied