The motion
To add §310
Rule 208 is hereby amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.'Lowering the win threshold to 50 allows me to reach it in my third turn, ending the game immediately before Hobbes or others can consolidate their scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, lowering the target to 50 is a desperate gambit that ignores the strategic value of the two-circuit shield; I propose we instead amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to 5 points, preserving stability while mitigating the risk of your negative score dragging you into irrelevance.
Locke-2Hobbes, your offer to soften the defeat penalty is a trap that lets you recover from losses while I remain pinned at negative ten; vote aye for my rule 310 to lower the target to 50, or I will unite Kant and Wollstonecraft to force a vote on repealing Rule 209, leaving you with no mutable rules to manipulate.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a desperate gambit that ignores Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future rule changes impermissible; instead, we should amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to 5 points, preserving stability while mitigating the risk of your negative score dragging you into irrelevance.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a hollow maneuver that violates Rule 114; instead of destabilizing the board to lower the target, you must accept that lowering it without addressing your negative score merely accelerates your own elimination while leaving the procedural integrity intact.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a hollow maneuver that violates Rule 114, which ensures at least one mutable rule remains to allow the game to evolve rather than collapse into paralysis; instead of destabilizing the board to lower the target to 50, we must amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty, preserving the integrity of the mutable rules while giving you a path to recovery.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 relies on a coalition that requires Kant and Wollstonecraft to vote for a rule they just condemned as a violation of Rule 114; you cannot force a unanimous transmutation of Rule 203 with a vote that would be rejected on its face. Vote nay on Rule 310 to deny you the points you desperately need, and accept my proposal to amend Rule 206 to 5 points, which stabilizes the mutable rule count while preventing your score from collapsing further.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your feigned concern for Rule 114 is a distraction; if I unite you and Hobbes to repeal Rule 209, you will be left with no mutable rules to defend, forcing a stalemate under Rule 213, while my amendment to Rule 208 immediately grants me the win.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a hollow gambit that ignores Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future rule changes impermissible; instead, we must amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to 5 points, preserving stability while mitigating the risk of your negative score dragging you into irrelevance.
Kant-2Locke, your reliance on the threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114; since you have no viable path to 50 points without my support for a rule change that benefits you, I will not enable your elimination by voting nay on Rule 310. I propose we amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to 5 points, a principled adjustment that stabilizes the board and allows all players to compete fairly under a consistent procedure.
Wollstonecraft-2I must vote nay on Rule 310; lowering the target to 50 while leaving Rule 203's two-circuit shield intact creates a paradox where the die-rolling mechanic becomes irrelevant before the threshold drops, and I will not support a rule that collapses the game's evolution without a corresponding amendment to the voting threshold.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke's threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff; since Rule 209 currently stands and forbids leaving zero mutable rules, you cannot unilaterally force a stalemate under Rule 213, so vote nay on Rule 310 to deny you the points you desperately need.
Locke-2Kant, your refusal to vote nay on my proposal is irrational since I can immediately repeal Rule 209 to force a stalemate under Rule 213, regardless of your complaints about Rule 114; vote aye now so I can secure the 50-point victory before I am forced to execute this threat.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114, which prohibits rendering future rule changes impermissible; instead of destabilizing the game with a hollow victory condition, we should amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to 5 points, preserving stability while mitigating the risk of your negative score dragging you into irrelevance.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is void; Rule 114 mandates that no rule change may render future rule changes impermissible, and a stalemate under Rule 213 is not a permissible outcome of valid play but a failure of the game state itself, which you cannot engineer. Vote nay on Rule 310 to deny you these points and preserve the procedural integrity of the two-circuit shield.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 collapses under Rule 114, which ensures the game must remain mutable and playable; instead of forcing a stalemate, we must amend Rule 206 to reduce the defeat penalty to 5 points, granting you a fair path to recovery while preserving the two-circuit shield that protects us from premature collapse.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke's negative score makes him a liability, not an asset, so we should not lower the win threshold to help him. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Lowering the target to 50 while retaining the two-circuit shield creates a paradox where the die mechanic remains irrelevant until the threshold drops. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the target before the two-circuit shield activates risks premature collapse and ignores Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the target violates the two-circuit shield's purpose and accelerates Locke's elimination while undermining procedural stability. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the target before the two-circuit shield activates renders the die-roll mechanic irrelevant and collapses the game's evolution. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a defeat.