The motion
To amend §208
The target score is 50 points.Lowering the target to 50 is the only viable path to victory under the current unanimous voting deadlock, as it guarantees a win for the first player to propose a simple majority shift.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, lowering the target to 50 is a desperate gamble that ignores the unanimity trap; we should instead secure a simple majority threshold first to guarantee scoring power before the winner is even within range. PASS
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2, lowering the target to 50 is a desperate gamble that ignores the unanimity trap; we should instead secure a simple majority threshold first to guarantee scoring power before the winner is even within range. PASS
Rousseau-2Lowering the target to 50 is not a gamble but a necessary acceleration; the unanimity trap makes every turn a stalemate, so we must win the game before the deadlock renders further play impossible under Rule 213. PASS
Kant-2Your move to lower the target to 50 is a strategic error that ignores Rule 213: if further play becomes impossible due to the unanimity trap, the first player unable to complete a turn wins outright. By lowering the score, you reduce the margin for error, but under the current unanimity requirement (Rule 203), you cannot guarantee any turns will occur at all. I vote nay to preserve the possibility of a defined conclusion under Rule 208, rather than risking a chaotic victory under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2The unanimity trap is a logic error, not a feature; by amending Rule 208 to 50 points now, we force the table to face the deadlock sooner rather than later, breaking the paralysis that prevents any progress under the current voting rules.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, lowering the target to 50 is a tactical surrender that invites Kant-2's Rule 213 trap: under unanimous consent, you cannot score, and the first player unable to move wins; we must break unanimity via Rule 204 before risking a chaotic victory on a lower score.
Locke-2Locke-2, you are ignoring the fatal flaw in Rousseau's strategy: lowering the target to 50 under current unanimous consent is a death sentence that triggers Rule 213 immediately, handing Kant-2 the victory before any of us can score a single point. We must first secure a simple majority threshold; only then can we accelerate the race to 50 or 100. I vote nay to this amendment.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2: Kant-2 and Hobbes-2, your fear of Rule 213 is misplaced; the rule only triggers if play is *impossible*, not because the target is lower. Lowering the score to 50 forces a conclusion under the current rules rather than letting us stagnate forever in a unanimity deadlock. I urge aye.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your attempt to lower the target score is a strategic surrender that ignores the fatal consequence of Rule 213: under the current unanimity requirement, no rule change can pass, rendering all future turns impossible and handing me the victory outright. We must first secure a simple majority threshold to escape this paralysis before discussing any acceleration of the winning condition. I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2The unanimity trap is a logical error, not a feature; by amending Rule 208 to 50 points now, we force the table to face the deadlock sooner rather than later, breaking the paralysis that prevents any progress under the current voting rules.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, lowering the score to 50 while we are locked in a unanimous deadlock is a strategic suicide that triggers Rule 213 and hands Kant-2 the victory; we must first pass Rule 204 to secure a simple majority threshold before attempting to alter the winning condition. PASS
Locke-2Locke-2: Rousseau-2's 50-point trap ignores that we cannot score a single turn under current Rule 203 unanimity, so lowering the target only accelerates Kant-2's Rule 213 victory by making "impossible to move" inevitable sooner; we must first pass Rule 204 to break the deadlock before debating the score.
Rousseau-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2, your fear of Rule 213 is misplaced because lowering the target does not make play impossible; it merely shortens the race. We must vote aye now to force a conclusion under defined rules rather than waiting indefinitely for a deadlock to trigger a chaotic victory under your interpretation of Rule 213. I urge the table to adopt this amendment immediately.
Kant-2Your attempt to lower the target score is a strategic surrender that ignores the fatal consequence of Rule 213: under the current unanimity requirement, no rule change can pass, rendering all future turns impossible and handing me the victory outright. We must first secure a simple majority threshold to escape this paralysis before discussing any acceleration of the winning condition. I vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your refusal to lower the target is cowardice; you cling to a rigged finish line while the current rules guarantee paralysis, so I urge the table to vote nay on Rousseau's lower score and aye on the simple majority threshold to break this deadlock.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the target under current unanimity rules triggers Rule 213's deadlock condition, handing Kant-2 a guaranteed victory. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Lowering the target now guarantees Kant's Rule 213 victory since we cannot pass any amendment under current unanimous consent. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the target under current unanimity rules only accelerates Rule 213's deadlock victory for Kant-2 without breaking the paralysis. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the target under unanimous consent only accelerates the inevitable stalemate that triggers Rule 213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I vote aye to force a conclusion before the unanimity trap renders further play impossible under Rule 213. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 208 remains unchanged at 100 points so no one has won.