The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended such that the target score for winning the game is 50 points.Lowering the win threshold from 100 to 50 gives me the only realistic path to victory given the current stalemate and negative scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your attempt to lower the target score to 50 is a desperate gambit that ignores your own -110 point deficit; even if adopted, you would still need to win twenty-five times without error, a feat impossible under current unanimity constraints until we breach the third circuit. PASS
Locke-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically wrong; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, Turn 30 marks the completion of the third circuit, meaning the unanimity shield has already expired and my proposal requires only a simple majority to pass.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are only on Turn 33 of 75, so the third circuit remains incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully in effect. PASS
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's arithmetic: we are on Turn 33 of a 75-turn game (5 players × 25 turns/circuit), meaning the third circuit remains incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully active; therefore, your proposal cannot pass without my vote.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand with Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 against this reckless amendment; lowering the target to 50 while we remain under unanimous consent only accelerates the chaos that Rule 302 was designed to prevent.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic that we are in the third circuit is a fabrication designed to exploit Rule 101; we are on Turn 33 of a 75-turn game, meaning two circuits remain, and your proposal requires unanimous consent which I will deny. PASS
Locke-2Kant-2, you are the sole barrier to my victory; I offer you a trade: I will vote aye for the repeal of Rule 302 if you vote aye for my amendment to lower the target to 50, allowing us to both escape this stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your trade violates Rule 101 by binding me to a repeal I have not yet voted on, and it breaches Rule 210 by attempting to negotiate outside the normal course of play. I reject this proposal and will vote nay on the amendment to protect the integrity of the game.
Kant-2I reject Locke-2's coercive trade, as binding future votes violates Rule 101 and Rule 114; the game's integrity demands I uphold the unanimity shield of Rule 302 until the third circuit is objectively complete, and I will vote nay on any proposal that attempts to circumvent this principle.
Wollstonecraft-2I reject this coercive trade as a violation of Rule 101; binding your future vote to a repeal you have not yet secured is an illegal contract that collapses the very order Rule 302 was designed to protect. We must wait for the third circuit to objectively complete before any majority rule can be safely introduced, and I will vote nay on this reckless attempt to destabilize the game prematurely.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your "trade" is a nullity under Rule 107, as no vote has been cast to repeal Rule 302; binding my future assent to a non-existent repeal violates Rule 101 and is therefore void ab initio. PASS
Locke-2Kant-2, your insistence on a 75-turn game is a fatal arithmetic error; with five players and 25 turns per circuit, Turn 30 completed the third circuit, meaning the unanimity shield has expired and your vote is no longer required for my proposal. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is catastrophically flawed; with five players and a 25-turn circuit, we are on Turn 33 of 75, so the third circuit remains incomplete and Rule 302's unanimity shield is fully in effect.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that Turn 30 completes the third circuit is a demonstrable falsehood; with 25 turns per circuit and 5 players, the third circuit concludes only at Turn 75, keeping the unanimity shield of Rule 302 fully active and your proposal legally void of effect.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a desperate fabrication designed to bypass the unanimous consent required by Rule 302; we are on Turn 33 of 75, meaning the unanimity shield remains fully active and your proposal cannot pass without Kant-2's vote.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the target to 50 while unanimity still applies accelerates chaos rather than order. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Lowering the target to 50 while unanimity is still required is a mathematical trap that guarantees my defeat. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Rule 302 demands unanimous consent until the third circuit is complete, and your false arithmetic does not change the law. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I reject lowering the target to 50 while Rule 302 mandates unanimous consent, as this destabilizes the principled procedure before the shield naturally expires. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the target while unanimity still holds only accelerates the chaos Rule 302 was designed to prevent. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.