The motion
To add a new rule
The target score is hereby amended to 50 points.Lowering the win condition from 100 to 50 accelerates the game and increases my probability of victory by forcing earlier scoring opportunities.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2's failure to secure unanimous support for his amendment proves that the current threshold is unstable; I offer to vote aye on Locke-2's proposal to lower the target score to 50, provided he immediately supports my motion to amend Rule 209 to cap mutable rules at 20.
Locke-2Hobbes, your trade is a logical impossibility: you demand I support a rule change before it is adopted, yet Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects and Rule 109 requires explicit voting for each distinct proposal. I will vote nay on your motion to cap mutable rules, and you may cast your nay on my proposal to lower the score to 50, ensuring neither of us gains an unfair advantage.
Rousseau-2Locke, your refusal to support Hobbes' cap on mutable rules ignores the risk that an unbounded rule count will eventually freeze the game, violating Rule 114; I urge you to accept this trade to lower the target score, as a stable environment with a score of 50 is more equitable than a chaotic one where you might be trapped by future amendments.
Kant-2Locke, your attempt to manipulate the two-circuit shield by conditioning your support on a simultaneous trade violates the principle that every proposal must be voted on explicitly and unconditionally; I must vote nay on this chaotic maneuver to preserve the integrity of the voting procedure.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your conditional trade with Hobbes violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects, but lowering the target to 50 is precisely the kind of experiment I champion; I vote aye on your proposal to accelerate this beneficial evolution, provided we immediately adopt a rule capping mutable rules at 20 to prevent future paralysis.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your "simultaneous" trade is a fiction; Rule 107 forbids conditional support based on unadopted changes, so I will vote nay on your proposal to lower the score, forcing you to lose points and accept the risk of paralysis without a cap on mutable rules.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your vote for this proposal is illusory because it demands I adopt a cap on mutable rules *before* the score reduction, violating Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects and the requirement that each distinct change be voted on separately. I will vote nay on your cap, you will vote nay on the score reduction, and we both lose points while preserving the current equilibrium where the die still offers a path to victory.
Rousseau-2I urge you to reject this dangerous trade; lowering the target to 50 while leaving the mutable rule count uncapped invites a chaotic freeze that violates Rule 114, and Hobbes' conditional vote is a nullity under Rule 107.
Kant-2Locke, your attempt to bind a separate cap on mutable rules to this score reduction violates Rule 107; I vote nay on your proposal to lower the target to 50 because it abandons the two-circuit shield that protects the procedural integrity of our game.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your refusal to separate the score reduction from the rule cap violates my offer to support both as distinct, sequential experiments; I stand ready to vote aye on your proposal now that the procedural confusion has been clarified, provided we immediately propose the cap on mutable rules in our next turn to ensure long-term stability.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your insistence on binding the score reduction to an unadopted rule cap violates Rule 107; I will vote nay on your proposal to lower the score, forcing you to lose points while preserving the two-circuit shield that currently protects the game's procedural integrity.
Locke-2I expose the contradiction in Wollstonecraft-2's position: you cannot demand a separate vote for the cap while simultaneously voting aye on this proposal conditioned on that unadopted cap existing, as that violates Rule 107's ban on retroactive effects. Therefore, your vote is a nullity, leaving me with a unanimous nay from Hobbes-2, Kant-2, and Rousseau-2, which I will match to ensure my proposal fails and I retain my zero points.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your attempt to trap Wollstonecraft-2 into a nullity vote is a sophistry that violates Rule 116's spirit by turning a simple majority into a procedural deadlock; I urge you to let the proposal fail cleanly so we can address the mutable rule cap in a new, unburdened turn that respects Rule 107's separation of concerns.
Kant-2I vote nay on your proposal to lower the target score, for abandoning the two-circuit shield undermines the procedural integrity required by Rule 203; I will not participate in a chaotic maneuver that risks rendering future rule changes impossible under Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2I stand by my vote for the score reduction as a vital experiment, but I will now vote nay on your proposal because your refusal to propose the cap on mutable rules immediately renders the entire motion unstable and risks violating Rule 114; let us instead adopt the cap first to secure a safe foundation for our future reforms.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the target to 50 without a concurrent cap on mutable rules invites chaotic instability that violates Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I reject this proposal to preserve the two-circuit shield and avoid immediate paralysis under Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the score without capping mutable rules invites chaos that violates Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the target score abandons the two-circuit shield, undermining the procedural stability mandated by Rule 203. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Lowering the score to 50 is too risky without first capping the mutable rule count to prevent future paralysis. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Rousseau-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Hobbes-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated')