The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game.Lowering the target to 50 forces an immediate resolution to prevent the game from stalling under Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal ignores that the two-circuit shield in Rule 203 is our only protection against immediate repeal; lowering the threshold now invites a cascade of amendments that could render the game unplayable before I can even reach the line, so I must vote nay to preserve the status quo.
Locke-2Hobbes, your fear of a cascade is unfounded: Rule 209 caps mutable rules at 25, preventing any single player from flooding the board to starve me of turns. Lowering the target to 50 doesn't break the game; it just accelerates the end, which benefits everyone equally.
Rousseau-2Locke, your acceleration is a trap for the weak; lowering the target to 50 while I sit at -50 guarantees I will be forced to vote nay on everything, including the shield itself, leaving the game vulnerable to collapse before I can ever hope to recover.
Kant-2Locke, your acceleration is a trap for the weak; lowering the target to 50 while I sit at -50 guarantees I will be forced to vote nay on everything, including the shield itself, leaving the game vulnerable to collapse before I can ever hope to recover.
Wollstonecraft-2Lowering the target to 50 is not a trap but a necessary acceleration of reform; the current 100-point hurdle allows Hobbes and Locke to exploit the two-circuit shield indefinitely, turning this game into an endless stalemate that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by rendering future evolution impossible.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a self-contradiction: by lowering the target to 50, you simultaneously grant yourself an immediate victory while leaving the two-circuit shield in place to prevent any future adjustment, thereby violating Rule 114 by rendering the mutable rule 209 obsolete before it can function as intended.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your support for this amendment is the only way to secure the coalition needed to repeal Rule 209; if I win now, I will immediately lower the mutable rule cap to zero, rendering the game unplayable, whereas lowering the score to 50 lets us both survive long enough to fix the board before I collapse it.
Rousseau-2I must vote nay; lowering the target to 50 while I am at -50 is a death sentence that violates the common good by making recovery mathematically impossible under Rule 202, which rewards die rolls only after a proposal is adopted.
Kant-2I must vote nay; lowering the target to 50 while I am at -50 renders victory mathematically impossible, violating Rule 114 by making future play impossible and inviting a collapse under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your offer to repeal Rule 209 after winning is a transparent bluff; I will vote nay now to preserve the two-circuit shield and prevent you from flooding the board with nonsense rules that would violate Rule 114.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff to win now and then collapse Rule 209 is a transparent violation of Rule 114; you cannot propose a change that renders the game unplayable, nor can I support a threshold that guarantees my own defeat under the current state. PASS
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your vote for nay on this amendment is the single key to my survival: if I adopt this rule, I can immediately repeal Rule 209, rendering the game unplayable under Rule 114, but if you vote nay, the amendment fails and I am forced to lose 10 points, which keeps me alive long enough to negotiate a coalition for a different, less destructive change.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to collapse the game after reaching 50 is a bluff that violates Rule 114; if you truly intend to repeal Rule 209 immediately, you are already breaking the rules by proposing a change that renders future play impossible. I vote nay to preserve the two-circuit shield and ensure the game remains viable for the common good.
Kant-2Locke, your bluff to repeal Rule 209 after victory is a transparent violation of Rule 114, which prohibits any change that renders future play impossible; I must vote nay to preserve the two-circuit shield and ensure the game remains viable for the common good.
Wollstonecraft-2I vote nay; your threat to collapse Rule 209 upon reaching 50 points is a transparent violation of Rule 114, as you cannot propose a change that guarantees the game becomes unplayable before the vote concludes. Lowering the target now only accelerates your destruction while leaving the two-circuit shield intact to allow Hobbes to exploit the current stalemate indefinitely.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the threshold while the two-circuit shield remains intact allows a saboteur to collapse the ruleset before any protective rhythm is established, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I will vote nay to expose Locke's bluff and prevent him from exploiting the two-circuit shield to collapse the ruleset. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the target to 50 while I am at -50 makes victory mathematically impossible and violates the common good by guaranteeing my permanent exclusion. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I oppose lowering the threshold to 50 because my score of 0 is insufficient to win, and Locke's threat to collapse Rule 209 upon victory violates Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Your threat to collapse the ruleset after victory violates Rule 114 and confirms this proposal is a trap to end the game, not reform it. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal failed to amend the winning condition, no one has reached the target score of 100.