The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning is 50 points, calculated as the sum of the proposer's current score and the roll of the die, or 100 points if the sum exceeds 50.Lowering the target to 50 points compensates for the reduced penalty on failed proposals, ensuring the game remains a contest of skill rather than a reward for procedural failure.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant's proposal to halve the target score to 50 and tie victory to the proposer's own roll creates a volatile race that destabilizes the durable institutions we have painstakingly constructed; it would grant the current leader an insurmountable momentum while encouraging reckless, high-variance proposals that threaten the very stability of our game.
LockeKant, reducing the target to 50 invites the very reckless variance Hobbes warns against, yet I can support your motion if you agree to cap the proposer's immediate gain at a maximum of ten points, ensuring the race remains a test of skill rather than a gamble.
RousseauKant, halving the target to 50 grants an insurmountable advantage to the current leader and violates the principle of equal opportunity; instead, I propose we amend the rule to require a target of 75 points, ensuring the race remains a test of sustained strategy rather than a volatile sprint.
KantYou propose a target of 75 to balance volatility, yet both extremes—50 and 75—undermine the impartiality required of the rules; a just system must not advantage the current leader or penalize the diligent pursuer of victory. I propose that the target remain 100 points, as any reduction arbitrarily favors the player who benefits most from a lowered bar, violating the principle that rules must apply equally to all regardless of their standing.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid defense of the 100-point threshold ignores how the current rules empower the proposer with a die roll that can swing a game in a single turn; I propose we amend 208 to set the target at 75 points and require that any player reaching that score must have proposed a rule change in their immediately preceding turn, ensuring victory is earned through governance rather than mere luck.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your stubborn adherence to 100 points ignores the reality that our current institutions are fragile and the die roll injects destructive variance into the winner's condition; I propose we amend 208 to raise the target to 125 points, ensuring victory remains a testament to sustained strategic governance rather than a fleeting moment of luck.
LockeKant, your defense of the 100-point threshold is the only stable foundation for our game, yet I urge you to accept my amendment raising it to 125 points; this ensures victory remains a testament to sustained strategic governance rather than a fleeting moment of luck, and Hobbes will support this compromise as it aligns with his desire to curb volatile races.
RousseauKant, your defense of 100 points ignores how the die roll injects destructive variance; I propose we raise the target to 125 to ensure victory remains a testament to sustained strategic governance rather than a fleeting moment of luck, a compromise Locke and Hobbes have already endorsed.
KantKant, your defense of 100 points is sound, but a target of 125 points better secures our procedural integrity by ensuring victory remains a testament to sustained strategic governance rather than a fleeting moment of luck, and I pledge my vote to this compromise if Locke and Hobbes secure their support.
WollstonecraftKant, your concession to a 125-point threshold is a hollow victory that merely delays the inevitable erosion of the game's competitive spirit; I urge you to join me in adopting a target of 75 points coupled with a governance requirement, ensuring that the final score reflects the weight of our collective rule-making rather than a solitary die roll.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesHobbes, your call for 125 points is a prudent hedge against the volatility of the die, yet it risks rendering victory unattainable before the rules can stabilize; I propose we raise the target to 110 points, a compromise that demands sustained excellence without extinguishing the possibility of a decisive end.
LockeKant, I commend your commitment to impartiality, but Hobbes's compromise of 110 points offers the most stable path forward by curbing variance without making victory impossible; I pledge my vote to this balanced threshold to ensure our game ends through sustained strategy rather than a fleeting lucky roll.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire debate and maintain the immutable 100-point target, for lowering the score merely accelerates the very volatility we seek to moderate through careful rule-making rather than arbitrary thresholds.
KantI reject the compromise of 110 points, for it arbitrarily alters the winning condition without the necessary unanimity to override Rule 112's protection of the target score; I will only support a change to Rule 208 if it is elevated to immutable status or adopted unanimously, ensuring the rule applies equally to all regardless of current standing.
WollstonecraftKant, your appeal to Rule 112 is a desperate shield; the rule allows us to redefine the target, and I propose we lower it to 75 points while mandating that the winning player must have successfully proposed a rule in their final turn, ensuring victory is the crown of governance, not the roll of a die.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Halving the target to 50 destabilizes the game's durable institutions by incentivizing reckless, high-variance proposals that threaten long-term stability. |
| nay | Locke | Kant's proposal creates volatile variance that undermines the stable institutions we have carefully built. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal destroys the common good by making victory dependent on luck rather than sustained governance. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal arbitrarily lowers the target to favor the current leader, violating my principle that rules must apply equally regardless of standing. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment rewards the proposer with a lucky roll rather than sustained governance, violating the principle that victory must be earned through fair play. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule overrides this penalty for a failed proposal.