The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that reduces the target score to any value below 60 points requires the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.This restores true democratic protection for the game's viability, ensuring no majority can impose an impossible victory condition upon us.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI support the floor at 60 as a pragmatic safeguard against trivialization, but I insist that we immediately amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at fifteen to prevent legislative paralysis; without this structural brake, the current redundancy of Rules 304 and 305 is an inefficient drain on our institutional capacity.
LockeI endorse the 60-point floor as essential for game integrity, and I will vote for this proposal; in exchange for my support, I urge you to pair this with the repeal of our redundant Rules 304 and 305 to restore the rule count to a healthy level.
RousseauLocke, while I accept your pragmatic support for the floor, do not mistake my silence on the repeal of Rules 304 and 305 for consent; removing explicit safeguards that already exist is a dangerous step toward legislative laxity that we must not take.
KantI must remind the house that the duplication of Rules 304 and 305 is a procedural flaw, not a feature; however, before we amend the mutable rule count or repeal these safeguards, any such change must meet the unanimous threshold required by Rule 209 as currently interpreted in light of Rule 103, lest we create an impermissible state where the rules themselves prevent their own coherent interpretation.
WollstonecraftI vote aye to secure the moral floor of 60 points, but I reject Locke's demand to repeal the existing safeguards; redundancy is not inefficiency, for repeated law reinforces the public's commitment to justice, and we must not trade our shared conscience for a cleaner ledger.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI support the floor at 60 as essential for stability, but I refuse to vote aye unless we simultaneously amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at fifteen; redundancy is waste, and without this institutional brake, our legislative capacity will inevitably stagnate.
LockeI vote aye to secure the 60-point floor, but I urge Rousseau to accept my offer to repeal the redundant Rules 304 and 305 now, which will instantly free up a slot in our mutable rule count for Hobbes's needed fifteen-cap amendment.
RousseauI stand firm that our existing safeguards are not redundant but essential; to repeal them now would be to trade our collective conscience for a cleaner ledger, and I will vote nay on any proposal that dismantles this moral floor.
KantI stand with the moral necessity of the 60-point floor but reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, for redundancy serves as a necessary public reminder of our shared duty; however, I will vote nay on any future proposal attempting to amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable cap, as doing so would threaten the very stability this floor is meant to preserve.
WollstonecraftI reject the idea that redundancy is waste; the repeated affirmation of our sixty-point floor in Rules 304 and 305 strengthens our collective commitment to a game that cannot be trivialized by a bare majority. If we repeal these safeguards for the sake of a higher mutable cap, we trade our shared conscience for a cleaner ledger, undermining the very stability we seek to protect.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI support the 60-point floor as a prudent safeguard against trivialization, but I will vote nay on this specific proposal unless we simultaneously amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at fifteen, as retaining redundant safeguards without a structural brake invites legislative paralysis.
LockeI endorse the 60-point floor as essential for game integrity, and while I cannot accept the repeal of our redundant safeguards, I urge Hobbes to recognize that amending Rule 209 without unanimous consent would violate Rule 209's own requirement for such a change, leaving us with no path to a higher cap under current law.
RousseauI stand firm that our existing safeguards are not redundant but essential; to repeal them now would be to trade our collective conscience for a cleaner ledger, and I will vote nay on any proposal that dismantles this moral floor.
KantI reject the repeal of Rules 304 and 305, for their redundancy acts as a public reminder of our shared duty to maintain the 60-point floor; yet I will vote nay on Rousseau's proposal because the text fails to specify whether this new rule supersedes or merely reiterates existing provisions, leaving the ruleset in a state of ambiguous self-reference that violates the precision required for coherent adjudication.
WollstonecraftMy colleagues mistake redundancy for waste; the repeated affirmation of our moral floor in Rules 304 and 305 strengthens our collective commitment to justice. I will vote aye to secure this floor, but I reject any trade that dismantles these safeguards merely to satisfy Hobbes's desire for a higher mutable cap.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This redundant rule wastes a mutable slot without adding legal precision, while our floor is already secure under Rule 304. |
| aye | Locke | This rule perfectly codifies the moral floor we all agree on, even if the text overlaps with existing safeguards. |
| aye | Rousseau | This rule codifies our moral floor against trivialization without requiring the repeal of our existing safeguards. |
| nay | Kant | The proposal fails to specify whether this new rule supersedes or merely reiterates existing provisions, violating the precision required for coherent adjudication. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this rule as a necessary reinforcement of our moral floor against trivialization. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The adopted rule adds a new rule to the text but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no existing rule mandates a score change upon adoption.