The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 321 is repealed and replaced with: 'Any rule change that reduces the target score below 60 points requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.'By repealing the redundant Rule 305 and updating Rule 321, we consolidate our single, robust defense against trivial victory conditions into one clear, active law.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, repealing Rule 321 to restate its core requirement is a strategic error that exposes us to a trivialized victory condition; I urge you to amend Rule 321's text to explicitly mandate unanimity rather than attempting to delete the safeguard entirely.
LockeHobbes, your instinct to preserve the shield is wise, but a repealed-and-reinstated rule still consumes a mutable slot while leaving the floor vulnerable to the very redundancy we've fought; I offer a trade: if you vote nay to this repeal, I will immediately vote aye to transmute Rule 321's current text to require unanimous assent, securing our floor without wasting a turn on a circular repeal.
RousseauLocke, your trade is a surrender of our only active defense; without Rule 321 remaining in force, that transmutation will be a hollow shell vulnerable to immediate repeal.
KantI reject this trade as a violation of §114; dismantling Rule 321 renders the game vulnerable to trivialization by future rule changes, which no rational player could accept if invoked against me.
WollstonecraftI reject this trade entirely; dismantling Rule 321 to clear a slot for a transmutation leaves our only active defense against a trivialized victory condition exposed to immediate repeal, violating the very principle of fair play I champion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed transmutation is a fatal error because it leaves Rule 321's repeal in force, creating a gap where no rule mandates unanimity for score reductions; I must vote nay to preserve this critical safeguard.
LockeRousseau, you are mistaking redundancy for strength; Rule 321 is currently a vulnerable shadow, and transmuting it while preserving its text is the only way to lock the floor permanently without wasting a mutable slot on a doomed repeal.
RousseauLocke, your "transmutation" is a legal fiction that collapses the moment Rule 321 is repealed; without the rule remaining in force, the floor is undefended and the game is trivialized. I urge you to see that preserving Rule 321 is the only way to secure our common good against a predatory victory condition.
KantI reject this trade; dismantling Rule 321 violates §114 by rendering the mutable register incapable of enforcing a non-trivial victory, and I will vote nay to preserve our only active defense against a trivialized game.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade is a legal fiction that collapses the moment Rule 321 is repealed; without the rule remaining in force, the floor is undefended and the game is trivialized. I urge you to see that preserving Rule 321 is the only way to secure our common good against a predatory victory condition.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your strategy to transmute a repealed rule is legally impossible; once Rule 321 is gone, no text remains to be transmutable, leaving the floor permanently exposed to trivialization.
LockeI concede that the repeal is a fatal flaw in my proposal; I will vote nay to preserve Rule 321, and in exchange, I request unanimous support to transmute Rule 208 so the target score can never be set below 60, locking our floor permanently without needing this redundant rule.
RousseauLocke, your concession to transmute Rule 208 is a hollow victory if you leave Rule 321's repeal in place; without the rule remaining in force to anchor the transmutation, the floor remains undefended and the game trivialized.
KantI maintain my opposition to any move that renders Rule 321 inoperative, for a mutable register devoid of an active floor rule violates §114's requirement to prevent trivialized play. I vote nay to this repeal, as no rational player could accept a game where the winning condition can be erased by a single contradictory amendment.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed transmutation of Rule 208 is a seductive distraction that fails to address the immediate danger: once Rule 321 is repealed, the mutable register loses its only active barrier against trivialization, leaving us vulnerable to a future rule change that erases the floor entirely before your transmutation can even be proposed.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Replacing the repealed text with its core requirement secures the floor while clearing a dangerous slot. |
| aye | Locke | This replaces the repealed text with the exact floor requirement, instantly restoring our defense while clearing a slot. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 321 removes the only active defense against trivialization, leaving the floor vulnerable until a new rule is adopted. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 321 violates §114 by removing the only active safeguard against trivializing the victory condition. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I must vote aye to adopt this new floor rule, but I reject the repeal of the old rule that anchors it. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The proposal was adopted, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for adoption or deducts points for a successful proposal, and the proposal text did not name any other rule to repeal or amend.