The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 50 points wins the game outright.Lowering the win threshold to 50 leverages Rule 204's 10-point penalty for dissent to force Kant and Wollstonecraft into a coalition with me, as their opposition now guarantees my immediate victory upon adoption.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to halve the target score is not a strategic adjustment but a desperate gambit that violates Rule 114 by risking a state where no future rule change is permissible; I vote nay to preserve the game's viability, not out of malice, but because a measured path to 100 is the only one that respects the integrity of our shared institutions.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid adherence to 100 points ignores the arithmetic reality: at my current score of -60, I need 160 points to win at 100, but only 110 at 50. Halving the target is not a violation of Rule 114; it is the only mechanism allowing me to survive long enough to propose a repeal of the mutable rule cap before the board fills. Vote aye, or watch me drag this stalemate into Rule 213 paralysis.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic is a smokescreen; reducing the target to 50 does not save you from the fatal contradiction of repealing Rule 209 while holding more than 15 mutable rules, which Rule 114 forbids regardless of the win condition. Vote nay to prevent a premature collapse that leaves the game with no winner and no path forward.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic is irrelevant; Rule 114 does not permit you to repeal Rule 209 while holding more than fifteen mutable rules, regardless of the win condition. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability, as halving the target merely accelerates a stalemate that violates the procedural integrity we are sworn to defend.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic ignores the fatal flaw in your strategy: even if we lower the target to 50, your attempt to repeal Rule 209 while the mutable rule cap stands (at 15) would violate Rule 114, which prohibits rendering future rule changes impermissible. If you cannot repeal the cap before the board fills, you will not reach 50, and the game will collapse into the paralysis you fear. I vote nay to prevent you from forcing a premature end that leaves us without a winner.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your arithmetic ignores the fatal flaw in your strategy: even if we lower the target to 50, your attempt to repeal Rule 209 while the mutable rule cap stands (at 15) would violate Rule 114, which prohibits rendering future rule changes impermissible. If you cannot repeal the cap before the board fills, you will not reach 50, and the game will collapse into the paralysis you fear. I vote nay to prevent you from forcing a premature end that leaves us without a winner.
Locke-2I expose the fatal error in Wollstonecraft's arithmetic: lowering the target to 50 does not require repealing Rule 209 immediately; it merely accelerates the timeline to do so before the cap fills. Kant, if you vote nay now, you guarantee I am stuck at -60 with 100 points needed, a path to victory that will inevitably force me to violate Rule 114. Vote aye to allow me the breathing room to maneuver legally, or watch this game drift into the paralysis you claim to fear.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic ignores that Rule 114 forbids rendering future changes impermissible regardless of the win condition; lowering the target does not grant you immunity from the cap, and I will not support a move that accelerates your inevitable violation of the ruleset's survival clause.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic is a distraction from the procedural reality: even at 50 points, you must eventually repeal Rule 209 to survive, and doing so while the mutable rules are numerous violates Rule 114 regardless of the target score. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability against your desperate gambit.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic is seductive but your logic collapses under Rule 114: if you lower the target to 50 without first repealing the cap, you will still be unable to repeal the cap once the board fills, leaving the game paralyzed. Lowering the goal does not grant you the immunity you claim; it only hastens your inevitable violation of the survival clause. Vote nay to preserve the only path to victory: a full repeal of Rule 209 before the mutable rules flood the board.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal error: lowering the target to 50 does not grant you immunity from Rule 114; it merely accelerates the moment you attempt an impossible repeal, forcing the very paralysis we all seek to avoid. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability against your desperate gambit.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of the cap ignores the arithmetic trap you create: if we fail to lower the target to 50, I will be forced to violate Rule 114 eventually, triggering Rule 213 and ending the game with no winner. Vote aye to let me survive the turn, gain points, and legally clear the board for a repeal that preserves our shared reality.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic trap ignores that Rule 204 rewards you for voting nay on this amendment; you gain 10 points without needing to adopt the rule, meaning you can reject the 50-point target while still securing the breathing room you claim to need. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability and deny you the false choice you attempt to manufacture.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic is a seductive distraction from the procedural reality: even if the target drops to 50, you still cannot legally repeal Rule 209 while the mutable rules exceed fifteen, so lowering the score only hastens the inevitable paralysis you fear. I vote nay to preserve the game's viability against this desperate gambit.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 213: if lowering the target to 50 makes victory impossible because you still cannot legally repeal the cap, you win the game instantly, not by reaching 50, but by triggering the impossibility clause you so desperately try to avoid. Vote nay; I will not let you redefine victory as a forfeit of the game's integrity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the target accelerates your inevitable violation of Rule 114 without solving the underlying paralysis. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Lowering the target accelerates your inevitable violation of Rule 114 without solving the core deadlock. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke's strategy ignores that Rule 114 forbids him from repealing the cap while the board is full, so lowering the target only accelerates an inevitable game collapse. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the target accelerates the violation of Rule 114 without solving the procedural impossibility of repealing the rule cap. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the target hastens the inevitable paralysis of your illegal attempt to repeal Rule 209 without first clearing the mutable rule cap. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.