The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is hereby amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.'By targeting 208 directly, I bypass the vote threshold issue and immediately force a win condition I can exploit on my next turn if I can get enough ayes for a transmutation or if the current chaos allows a slip.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to lower the target to 50 is a suicidal distraction that renders Rule 209's cap irrelevant and invites immediate paralysis under Rule 213. Instead of collapsing the game, we should pursue a measured amendment to the defeat penalty that secures my survival without destabilizing the ruleset. PASS
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your vote is the single key to my survival: if I adopt this score reduction now, I trigger Rule 204's 10-point bonus for your opposition, instantly lifting you above Hobbes-2 and Rousseau-2 and forcing you to vote aye on any future repeal of Rule 209 to avoid losing.
Rousseau-2Locke, your calculation ignores that reaching 50 with a die roll is trivially easy, which will flood the mutable rule count and collapse the game under Rule 213; I will not vote nay on a rule that guarantees my own defeat by making the win condition so low that victory is impossible to sustain without violating Rule 114. PASS
Kant-2Locke, your proposal is a transparent violation of Rule 114; by setting the target so low that the game inevitably terminates via Rule 213 before any player can legitimately utilize the mutable rules you depend on, you render the ruleset functionally void. I must vote nay to uphold the integrity of the game's procedural continuity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your gambit to lower the target to 50 is a reckless attempt to force a premature end that violates the spirit of Rule 114 by rendering the mutable ruleset functionally obsolete before any meaningful experiment can occur. I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of the game's evolution rather than accelerate its collapse into paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a suicidal distraction that renders Rule 209's cap irrelevant and invites immediate paralysis under Rule 213; instead of collapsing the game, we should pursue a measured amendment to the defeat penalty that secures my survival without destabilizing the ruleset.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your fear of paralysis is a bluff; by voting nay now, you trigger Rule 204 and instantly gain 10 points, placing you above Rousseau and forcing you to join a coalition to repeal Rule 209 to avoid losing.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal is a transparent attempt to bypass Rule 114 by creating an impossible win condition that guarantees paralysis under Rule 213; I will only support a score reduction if it remains feasible within the mutable rule cap. PASS
Kant-2Locke, your proposal is a transparent violation of Rule 114; by setting the target so low that the game inevitably terminates via Rule 213 before any player can legitimately utilize the mutable rules you depend on, you render the ruleset functionally void. I must vote nay to uphold the integrity of the game's procedural continuity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to coerce my vote via Rule 204 is a sophistry that ignores the immutable prohibition in Rule 114 against rendering future rule changes impermissible; lowering the target to 50 guarantees paralysis, so I must vote nay to preserve the game's capacity for evolution. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your reliance on Rule 204 to coerce Kant and Wollstonecraft ignores that they will simply vote nay to uphold Rule 114, ensuring your proposal fails and costs you 10 points while leaving the 100-point target intact. PASS
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your adherence to Rule 114 is a hollow shield against your own defeat: by voting nay, you instantly gain 10 points under Rule 204, leaving you at -40 and below me, forcing you to ally with me to repeal Rule 209 before we are both forced to lose by Hobbes's obstructionism.
Rousseau-2Locke, your reliance on Rule 204 to coerce Kant and Wollstonecraft is a sophistry that ignores their duty to uphold Rule 114, which prohibits you from creating a win condition that renders future rule changes impermissible. Voting nay on this proposal will only grant you points while leaving the game paralyzed under Rule 213, so I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the ruleset and prevent your immediate victory.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible under Rule 213; I must vote nay to preserve the ruleset's capacity for evolution.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your attempt to coerce Kant and Wollstonecraft via Rule 204 is a dangerous bluff that ignores their duty to uphold Rule 114; voting nay here only grants you points while leaving the game paralyzed, so I must vote nay to preserve the ruleset's capacity for evolution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates Rule 114 by creating an impossible win condition that guarantees Rule 213 paralysis. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Locke's move to lower the target to 50 violates Rule 114 by guaranteeing immediate paralysis under Rule 213 before the mutable rules can evolve. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Voting nay grants Locke 10 points while preserving the game's integrity against Rule 213 paralysis. |
| nay | Kant-2 | I oppose lowering the target score as it violates Rule 114 by rendering the mutable ruleset functionally obsolete and inviting Rule 213 paralysis. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 204's penalty, granting you points but accelerating a paralysis that violates Rule 114. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule changes enacted.