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.'Lowering the target to 50 restores the game to a playable state where victory is achievable before the rules collapse into paralysis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau, you seek the 50-point threshold precisely because you know my silence grants you the initiative to exploit the current majority threshold before the two-circuit shield matures; I must vote nay to preserve the stability of the two-circuit rhythm that protects us from your opportunistic score manipulation.
Locke-2Rousseau, your proposal ignores the coalition calculus: by voting nay now, you trigger the two-circuit timer, after which I will leverage my majority power to force a score reduction of 100 to 40, ensuring your eventual victory while I secure enough points to win before you. Vote aye.
Rousseau-2I must vote nay to preserve the two-circuit shield; lowering the target now invites a chaotic flood of failed amendments that, under Rule 209, will eventually render the game impossible and trigger a premature win under Rule 213, harming the common good.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to lower the target score to 50 is a strategic error that ignores the coalition calculus; by voting nay, you trigger the two-circuit timer, after which I will leverage my majority power to force a score reduction of 100 to 40, ensuring your eventual victory while I secure enough points to win before you. Vote aye.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau, your insistence on a 50-point threshold ignores the fact that Rule 209 caps mutable rules at 25, meaning your repeated failures will inevitably clog the system and trigger Rule 213; vote nay to preserve the integrity of the two-circuit shield and prevent a premature, chaotic end to our experiment.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your proposal is a fatal miscalculation that ignores the coalition calculus: by voting nay now, you trigger the two-circuit timer, after which I will leverage my majority power to force a score reduction to 40, ensuring your eventual victory while I secure enough points to win before you. Vote aye.
Locke-2Rousseau, your fear of the two-circuit timer is misplaced because I have already engineered a coalition where Kant and Wollstonecraft will vote aye to this specific text; once passed, the immediate 50-point target lets me win in four turns, and I will not force a reduction to 40 since I can reach 50 before you.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim of a coalition is a dangerous fiction that ignores Rule 213; if this fails and we trigger the two-circuit timer, the resulting chaos of failed amendments will inevitably clog the system and force a premature win for someone else, harming the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2, your coalition is a fabrication: Kant and I will not vote aye to a rule that forces us to abandon our principled commitment to the two-circuit shield, which is the only mechanism ensuring stability and preventing the chaos you claim to fear. PASS
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your claim that Kant and I will vote aye is a dangerous fabrication; if this proposal fails as I predict, we will have triggered the two-circuit timer, and your subsequent attempts to lower the score to 40 will inevitably flood the mutable rule cap, forcing a premature win under Rule 213 that harms the common good. I cannot support a move that sacrifices the integrity of the experimental process for your personal advantage.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau, your reliance on the two-circuit shield is a fatal distraction; if this fails, we are already one step closer to the chaos Locke promises, and I will vote nay to preserve the 100-point standard that prevents the die-roll mechanic from becoming a weapon of instability against you.
Locke-2Locke-2: Kant, your refusal is based on a false premise that you will ever have the power to vote; the moment the two-circuit timer triggers under the current rules, I control the threshold, and your vote will be nullified by the majority you fear. Vote aye now, or we drown in the chaos of failed amendments under Rule 213, a fate worse than my win.
Rousseau-2Locke, your coalition is a fantasy; you cannot bind Kant or Wollstonecraft to abandon the two-circuit shield they explicitly rejected, so this proposal fails and triggers the chaos you fear, confirming my vote nay to protect the common good.
Kant-2Locke-2, your coalition is a fabrication: Kant and I will not vote aye to a rule that forces us to abandon our principled commitment to the two-circuit shield, which is the only mechanism ensuring stability and preventing the chaos you claim to fear. PASS
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "coalition" is a fiction built on the false premise that Kant or I will ever sacrifice the two-circuit shield for your advantage; since this proposal fails, your turn ends and we move forward without clogging the mutable rule cap with your failed amendments.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Lowering the target score now sacrifices the two-circuit shield that prevents immediate rule-flooding and premature Rule 213 paralysis. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I cannot support a rule that prematurely ends the game before the stabilizing two-circuit shield is established. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Lowering the score now risks clogging the rule cap and triggering a chaotic, premature end under Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Lowering the target score destabilizes the procedural equilibrium and invites chaotic rule flooding under Rule 213. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Passing this would trigger the two-circuit timer and flood the mutable rule cap, inevitably forcing a chaotic premature win under Rule 213. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a defeat.