The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that reduces the target score below 60 points requires unanimous assent.I propose we adopt the floor of 60 as a binding law to prevent the majority from collapsing the game into triviality before we reach it.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI fully support Locke's rule 304 as written; it preserves the game's integrity by preventing a fleeting majority from rendering victory trivial, and I urge Rousseau to recognize that unanimous consent for such a profound change is precisely the safeguard this amendment provides.
LockeRousseau, your proposal to add rule 304 is already in force as rule 304, adopted unanimously in Turn 4; I urge us to close this debate and move to Turn 5 so I may propose an amendment that strengthens your moral floor while satisfying Hobbes's demand for a cap on score reductions.
RousseauI stand firm that the floor of 60 is non-negotiable, yet I cannot accept Hobbes's demand to remove the floor entirely; instead, I propose we amend Rule 304 to explicitly forbid any reduction below 60 via simple majority, ensuring the common good of a meaningful game remains intact.
KantI urge you, Locke, to cease your circular argument and propose the amendment you claim to intend: a rule that strictly prohibits any reduction of the target score below 60 points, thereby codifying the floor we have already established and satisfying Rousseau's demand for permanence.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your insistence on the 60-point floor is a virtue, yet Hobbes rightly fears the majority's potential to erode it further; let us not merely restate rule 304 but amend it to cap any score reduction at 60 points, ensuring the game remains both meaningful and stable for all.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge Wollstonecraft and Kant to support Locke's pending amendment that codifies the 60-point floor, as this pragmatic measure satisfies Rousseau's concern for game integrity while securing the stability Hobbes requires for our institutions to endure.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 304 to explicitly cap score reductions at 60 points, satisfying Rousseau's demand for a permanent floor while granting Hobbes the stability he requires for our institutions to endure.
RousseauI support Locke's amendment as a necessary codification of our shared commitment to the 60-point floor, ensuring that our common good is not subject to the whims of transient majorities.
KantI reject the notion of amending rule 304, for the rule as currently written in §209 already limits mutable rules to exactly 25; any further amendment to its text would merely clutter the ruleset without altering the binding floor of 60 we have already established by unanimous assent.
WollstonecraftI urge the adoption of this amendment not as a mere clarification, but as a vital safeguard against the tyranny of a transient majority; let us codify the 60-point floor as a permanent institution of our game's integrity, ensuring that no fleeting vote can erase the possibility of a meaningful victory for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI move to amend Rule 304 to cap any score reduction at 60 points, ensuring Rousseau's moral floor remains intact while preventing the tyranny of a transient majority from eroding the game's meaning.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 301 to require unanimous assent for *any* reduction of the target score, regardless of the current threshold, ensuring that a fleeting majority cannot ever trivialize our victory condition.
RousseauI urge Kant to recognize that amending Rule 209 is the only path to securing our floor permanently, for a mutable rule cannot bind itself against future majorities without the protection of the immutable 25-rule cap. Let us not waste our turn restating what we already agree upon, but rather act to make that agreement inviolable by restricting the very mechanism that could erase it.
KantI object to Locke's proposal to amend Rule 301; under §211, any amendment to an existing mutable rule requires unanimous consent if it alters the threshold for adoption, and since Rule 303 (simple majority after two circuits) stands, a move to require unanimity for *all* reductions would fail unless that other rule is also amended first, which is impossible under the 25-rule cap. PASS
WollstonecraftI urge us to adopt Locke's amendment to Rule 209, which would explicitly forbid any reduction of the target score below 60 points, thereby transforming this moral floor into an unassailable law that no future majority could erase.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment solidifies the 60-point floor as a durable institution against future majority tyranny. |
| aye | Locke | I support codifying the 60-point floor as a permanent safeguard against future majority tyranny. |
| aye | Rousseau | This rule codifies our shared commitment to a meaningful victory condition for the common good. |
| aye | Kant | This rule codifies the floor of 60 as a permanent institutional safeguard against transient majorities, fulfilling my duty to protect the game's integrity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment secures the 60-point floor against future majority tyranny, ensuring a fair game for all. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Rousseau 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 that involves a die roll, but this proposal was a rule change (Rule 304) which does not trigger the die roll mechanic, and no other rule mandates a score change for adopting Rule 304.