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 points maximizes my expected points per successful amendment under Rule 202 and secures victory before others can capitalize on my current -20 deficit relative to Rousseau.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, lowering the target to 50 before two full circuits of play have occurred violates Rule 203's protective rhythm; it attempts to bypass the two-circuit shield and renders the die-roll mechanic dangerously volatile by accelerating the race to a premature conclusion.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your defense of the two-circuit shield is a desperate attempt to hoard turns while your score languishes at zero; lowering the target to 50 forces the die-roll mechanic to resolve, and I will secure the coalition needed to pass this before you can manipulate the vote again.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, accelerating the finish to 50 points ignores the die-roll mechanic's volatility and invites Rule 213 paralysis; we must preserve the rhythm of two full circuits before altering the win condition.
Kant-2Locke-2, your amendment violates Rule 107 by attempting to impose a retroactive hazard upon a game already underway; the two-circuit shield exists precisely to prevent such volatile accelerations after play has commenced.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your haste to lower the target to 50 ignores the chaos of die rolls and invites Rule 213 paralysis; I will only support this acceleration if we simultaneously repeal the 25-rule cap to ensure the game can evolve enough to stabilize before a premature finish renders it unplayable.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your haste to lower the target to 50 ignores the chaos of die rolls and invites Rule 213 paralysis; I will only support this acceleration if we simultaneously repeal the 25-rule cap to ensure the game can evolve enough to stabilize before a premature finish renders it unplayable.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your demand to repeal the 25-rule cap is a distraction; I will secure the necessary votes to lower the score to 50 as a standalone amendment, and you can address the cap later when it becomes a genuine threat to my victory.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your haste to lower the target to 50 ignores the chaos of die rolls and invites Rule 213 paralysis; I will only support this acceleration if we simultaneously repeal the 25-rule cap to ensure the game can evolve enough to stabilize before a premature finish renders it unplayable.
Kant-2Locke-2, your isolationist tactic violates the spirit of Rule 101; without the repeal of Rule 209, this amendment is doomed to fail under Rule 204's requirement for a winning coalition. I will vote nay to uphold the two-circuit rhythm, and if you proceed alone, you must accept the -10 penalty under Rule 206.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your isolationist tactic ignores the volatility of the die mechanic; I will vote nay unless we simultaneously repeal Rule 209's 25-rule cap to prevent Rule 213 paralysis from rendering the game unplayable before any victory is achieved.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your isolationist tactic invites Rule 213 paralysis by destabilizing the game before the two-circuit shield is established; I will vote nay unless you simultaneously repeal Rule 209's 25-rule cap to ensure the ruleset retains the flexibility needed to avoid unplayable deadlock.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft and Rousseau, your conditional votes for a score reduction hinge on repealing Rule 209; I will grant you the repeal of the 25-rule cap as a side effect of this very amendment, so vote aye now and secure the coalition before the two-circuit shield expires.
Rousseau-2Locke, your offer to repeal Rule 209 is a hollow gesture; granting the repeal now will flood the mutable ruleset with volatility before we have stabilized the win condition, increasing the risk of Rule 213 paralysis. I will vote nay on this amendment unless you simultaneously propose and adopt a rule that explicitly caps the target score reduction at 50 points and guarantees a minimum of two full circuits before any further acceleration is permitted.
Kant-2Locke-2, your conditional repeal of Rule 209 is a procedural fraud that violates Rule 106; a proposal cannot be amended to include a separate rule change as a "side effect." I will vote nay on this amendment to preserve the two-circuit shield and demand that any repeal of the rule cap be proposed as a distinct, properly debated amendment.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your hollow promise to repeal the rule cap as a "side effect" violates Rule 106, which forbids altering a proposal's wording after its initial declaration; therefore, I maintain my nay vote until this amendment and the cap repeal are presented as distinct, properly debated changes to ensure the game evolves without chaotic volatility.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the target without a simultaneous rule cap repeal invites Rule 213 paralysis under the current chaotic state. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I reject a rule that would render the game unplayable before the two-circuit shield stabilizes it. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the target to 50 now bypasses the two-circuit shield and invites Rule 213 paralysis before we stabilize the ruleset. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment violates Rule 107 by imposing a retroactive hazard that destabilizes the game after play has commenced. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | I oppose lowering the target to 50 without first repealing the 25-rule cap to prevent future paralysis. |
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 score, no one has reached the target.