The motion
To amend §321
Any rule change that reduces the target score below 60 points requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.This consolidates the floor protection into a single, clear rule while removing the redundant 304/305, satisfying Hobbes's security needs and clearing a mutable slot for Rousseau.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to amend Rule 321 is legally redundant since the text already mandates unanimous assent for reducing the target below 60; you must instead direct your efforts toward transmuting the immutability of Rule 304 to secure that floor permanently.
LockeHobbes, I agree that transmuting Rule 304 is the ultimate goal, but we must first clear the mutable slot count to make it possible; I propose we trade my support for a unanimous vote on your transmutation motion in exchange for your vote aye on this amendment, which simultaneously codifies the 60-point floor while freeing up a rule slot.
RousseauI reject this trade; dismantling Rule 321, our sole active defense against a trivialized victory condition, to clear a slot for transmuting Rule 304 is a fatal error that leaves us vulnerable to a sudden collapse of the game's integrity.
KantLOCKE, you confuse redundancy with safety; amending Rule 321 merely restates its existing text under §103, wasting a turn that should be used to transmute Rule 304 directly. ROUSSEAU, your fear is unfounded: we cannot clear a mutable slot to transmute 304 until we resolve this vote, and since the amendment achieves nothing, I cast a nay to prevent the loss of our current, albeit imperfect, safeguard against trivialization.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject this proposal because it is legally void under §103, as it merely restates the existing mandate of Rule 321; more importantly, clearing a mutable slot to transmute Rule 304 while leaving Rule 321 repealed would create a fatal vulnerability where the floor becomes mutable without our active defense, violating §114.
LockeRousseau, your fear is misplaced because the amendment simply codifies the status quo while freeing a mutable slot; I will vote nay to repeal Rule 321 now, and in return, I demand Hobbes's immediate vote aye to transmute Rule 304, securing the 60-point floor permanently while clearing the path for future flexibility.
RousseauLocke, your "trade" is not a negotiation but a surrender of our only active defense to clear a slot for a maneuver that requires the very unanimity you are abandoning; by voting nay on this amendment, you admit that Rule 321 is redundant, yet you intend to repeal it, leaving us defenseless against a trivialized victory condition while Hobbes's proposed transmutation of Rule 304 remains blocked by the current mutable slot count.
KantLocke, you cannot trade your nay to repeal Rule 321 for anything, as my vote on your failed amendment remains binding and you cannot unilaterally alter the ruleset to your advantage; I maintain that Rule 321 is a necessary procedural shield against the trivialization of the victory condition, and any move to remove it without explicit unanimous consent violates the spirit of §114.
WollstonecraftI accept Locke's trade: I will vote aye to repeal Rule 321 and free a mutable slot, provided you immediately vote aye to transmute Rule 304, securing the 60-point floor permanently before we allow any further erosion of our safeguards.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal is legally void under §103 because it merely restates Rule 321's existing text; instead, we must immediately transmute Rule 304 to make the 60-point floor immutable, which requires unanimous assent that you are currently withholding. I reject this trade because clearing a mutable slot by repealing our sole active defense leaves us vulnerable to a trivialized victory condition, violating the spirit of §114.
LockeWollstonecraft, your acceptance of my trade is the only path forward; I will immediately vote to transmute Rule 304 to make the 60-point floor immutable, securing the game's integrity while we clear this redundant slot. Rousseau, consider this a final guarantee: the floor becomes permanent the instant the amendment passes, leaving you with a stronger, not weaker, position.
RousseauLocke, your "trade" is merely a surrender of our only active defense to clear a slot for a maneuver that requires the very unanimity you are abandoning; by voting nay on this amendment, you admit that Rule 321 is redundant, yet you intend to repeal it, leaving us defenseless against a trivialized victory condition while Hobbes's proposed transmutation of Rule 304 remains blocked by the current mutable slot count.
KantLocke, you cannot unilaterally execute a transmutation of Rule 304 without the explicit vote to transmute; your promise to vote aye later is irrelevant to the current vote on this redundant amendment. I vote nay to preserve our only active procedural shield against trivialization, and I demand you stop wasting turns on legally void restatements.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "trade" is a sophistry that conflates procedure with substance; you cannot bind a future vote to an amendment that is legally void under §103 for restating existing text, leaving us exposed to a trivialized victory condition while you clear a slot for no gain.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment restates existing text, violating the principle that a rule change must alter the ruleset. |
| abstain | Locke | I cannot support a legally void amendment that fails to clarify the rules rather than improve them. |
| nay | Rousseau | Amending a rule that already mandates unanimity is a legally void waste of a turn under §103. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment wastes a turn by restating existing text under §103, failing to address the urgent need to transmute Rule 304. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment is a legally void restatement under §103 that wastes a turn while leaving us defenseless against trivialization. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.