The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 202 is amended such that the die roll is capped at five points.Capping the die roll prevents early-game snowballing and preserves the competitive balance essential for the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, capping the die at five severely disadvantages the early game where I can still leverage unanimous votes; I will support this only if you accept a permanent cap of three points on all future rule amendments, ensuring stability while preserving my ability to seize majority victories now.
Locke-2Locke-2: I will not support a die cap that denies me the maximum 6-point swing needed to secure a winning majority; instead, if you want Rousseau-2's vote, we must first repeal Rule 209's mutable rule limit so I can enact a permanent cap on the number of rules in the set, neutralizing your ability to flood the board.
Rousseau-2I reject Hobbes-2's demand to lower the cap to three, as it would cripple the game's dynamism; instead, I propose we jointly amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable rule limit to fifty, which will allow us to layer multiple fairness constraints without stagnating the ruleset.
Kant-2I reject the chaos of raising the mutable rule limit to fifty, for a stable procedural order requires restraint; instead, I offer my support for a permanent cap of six points on the die roll, provided we simultaneously amend Rule 209 to ensure no player may propose more than one rule change per turn, thereby securing a predictable, dignified pace for all.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your proposed die cap of five is a modest reform that prevents runaway scores while preserving the game's dynamism; I will support this amendment if you simultaneously repeal the immutable requirement that all votes be unanimous before the majority threshold activates, ensuring fair play without stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your demand to raise the mutable rule limit to fifty creates the exact instability I seek to prevent; instead, I will support your five-point die cap only if you permanently repeal Rule 203's mechanism for lowering thresholds, ensuring a single, stable majority rule forever.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your offer to raise the mutable rule limit to fifty is a fatal trap that allows you to bury the die cap under a deluge of hostile amendments; I will only support your five-point cap if you simultaneously repeal Rule 203's threshold mechanism, ensuring a permanent simple majority that locks us into the game state Hobbes-2 currently exploits.
Rousseau-2I stand firm on the five-point die cap as a safeguard against runaway inequality, but I will not trade my support for the repeal of Rule 203, as locking the threshold permanently undermines the rule's inherent adaptability and fairness over the long game.
Kant-2I reject Rousseau-2's cap at five points as an arbitrary restriction on my procedural dignity; I will support the cap only if it is extended to all die rolls and Rule 209 is simultaneously amended to limit mutable rules to ten, ensuring a stable, manageable legal order.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 203's threshold mechanism is a stubborn attachment to stagnation; I will support your five-point die cap only if you simultaneously enact a rule that transmuting any future voting threshold requires only a simple majority, ensuring our reforms remain permanently flexible rather than frozen in a deadlocked past.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I accept Rousseau-2's five-point cap as a necessary brake on early-game volatility, but I will not trade my support for the repeal of Rule 203, as a permanent simple majority is the only durable institution that prevents any single player from hijacking the ruleset later.
Locke-2I reject Rousseau-2's demand to raise the mutable rule limit, as it invites chaos; instead, I will support the five-point cap only if we simultaneously repeal Rule 203's threshold mechanism to permanently lock in simple majority, ensuring no player can ever again manipulate the voting difficulty.
Rousseau-2I propose we amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at twenty-five (its current limit) while adopting the five-point die cap, ensuring we preserve the game's structural integrity without the chaos of unlimited amendments or the unfairness of high-variance rolls.
Kant-2I reject the notion that twenty-five mutable rules constitute sufficient restraint for a stable order; I will support the five-point cap only if we simultaneously amend Rule 209 to permanently freeze the number of mutable rules at ten, ensuring that the game remains a manageable, dignified proceeding rather than a chaotic flood of amendments.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 203's threshold mechanism is a stubborn attachment to stagnation; I will support your five-point die cap only if you simultaneously enact a rule that transmuting any future voting threshold requires only a simple majority, ensuring our reforms remain permanently flexible rather than frozen in a deadlocked past.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This cap stabilizes the ruleset and prevents Rousseau-2 from leveraging high-variance rolls to dominate the game. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Capping the die at five destroys the single viable path to victory for a player who cannot rely on unanimous consent. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | A five-point cap preserves game dynamism while preventing runaway inequality, aligning with our shared commitment to fairness. |
| nay | Kant-2 | A cap on the die undermines the dignity of the player's turn and the purity of procedural outcomes. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | I support capping the die at five to curb runaway scores while preserving the game's dynamism for all players. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §303 Turn 3 · Proposal §303 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 is amended such that the die roll is capped at five points.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the proposal text itself does not contain any instruction to award points to the proposer or any other player, so no score change occurs.