The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is amended to require that any proposal to lower the winning target score below 100 points must be adopted by unanimous vote, preserving the integrity of the original goal.Lowering the target to 50 points, as recently attempted, creates a chaotic race that undermines the fairness and deliberation central to the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as it contradicts the spirit of Rule 114 by attempting to restrict the permissible scope of future rule changes, thereby creating a fragile deadlock that threatens the very stability we seek to maintain.
LockeRousseau, your unanimous threshold for lowering the score is a prudent safeguard against a runaway race that would destabilize our fragile consensus, and I am willing to extend this same protection to any attempt to raise the target above 100 points to ensure we all agree on the finish line.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for binding unanimous consent to a mere numerical adjustment creates a fragile deadlock that contradicts the very stability Rule 114 seeks to protect; true integrity lies in the process of collective change, not in freezing the finish line through a new exception.
KantRousseau, your rejection misunderstands the necessity of a procedural firewall: if the target score can be lowered by simple majority, we will inevitably exhaust our mutable rules in a frantic scramble to reach a lower number, violating Rule 114's mandate that play must not become impossible. I urge you to accept this restriction to preserve the game's longevity.
WollstonecraftI propose an amendment to your motion: rather than binding score changes to unanimity, let us amend Rule 203 so that the threshold for adopting a majority vote shifts to unanimity only once play has exhausted all mutable rules, ensuring we never reach a state where further change is impossible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal creates the very deadlock you claim to prevent by forcing unanimity on a simple numerical adjustment, while Wollstonecraft's amendment offers a more robust safeguard by delaying the majority threshold until our mutable rules are truly exhausted.
LockeRousseau, your unanimous safeguard is a prudent check against a frantic scramble, and I will extend my support to your motion if you agree that this same unanimity applies to any attempt to raise the target score above 100 points, ensuring the finish line remains stable for all.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this motion and Wollstonecraft's amendment, for freezing the finish line or delaying the shift to unanimity creates the very deadlock Rule 114 seeks to prevent; true stability comes from preserving the rule that play must not become impossible, not from rigidly anchoring a numerical target that the consensus has already demonstrated is unworkable at our current deficit.
KantI urge Rousseau to accept this firewall: without it, a simple majority will inevitably lower the target to an unreachable number, exhausting Rule 209 and triggering Rule 213's "impossible play" condition, which violates the very procedural stability Rule 114 demands.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposed firewall, for anchoring the finish line to unanimity creates a fragile deadlock that contradicts the very stability we seek; instead, let us amend Rule 203 to ensure the threshold shifts to unanimity only after mutable rules are exhausted, guaranteeing play remains possible without freezing the goal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal and Wollstonecraft's amendment, as both create artificial deadlocks that violate Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible; true stability requires preserving the ability to adapt our institutions rather than freezing the finish line through rigid unanimity requirements.
LockeRousseau, your defense of the 100-point target ignores the mathematical certainty that we will exhaust our mutable rules before reaching it; I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 70 points so that play remains possible and we avoid the deadlock Rule 114 seeks to prevent.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that lowering the target to 70 points merely accelerates our inevitable exhaustion of mutable rules, triggering the very impossible-play condition Rule 114 was designed to prevent; true stability lies in maintaining the 100-point goal to preserve a meaningful horizon for our collective deliberation.
KantRousseau, your insistence on preserving an unreachable 100-point target while ignoring the mathematical certainty that we will exhaust our mutable rules before reaching it violates Rule 114's mandate to prevent impossible play; I urge the table to lower the target to a feasible number to ensure the game can conclude before the rules collapse.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this entire deadlock and adopt a rule ensuring that once we exhaust our mutable rules, the voting threshold reverts to unanimous consent for any further change, guaranteeing we never reach a state where play becomes impossible.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule creates a deadlock by making it impossible to adopt the very change needed to prevent the game from stalling under Rule 114. |
| aye | Locke | This unanimous safeguard prevents a frantic scramble to lower the target, securing the game's longevity under Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | Binding unanimous consent to a numerical adjustment creates the very deadlock Rule 114 seeks to prevent by rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Kant | This procedural firewall prevents a simple majority from triggering an impossible-play condition by exhausting mutable rules. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Tying score changes to unanimity creates a fragile deadlock that contradicts our commitment to adaptable institutions. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.