The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby amended to state: "If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately."I must explicitly remove the right to continue playing while in debt, preventing any future proposals from exploiting a loophole to keep Locke in the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pledge to raise the target score is a distraction; we must first secure the floor to prevent Rule 213 from collapsing under its own weight. I move to amend Rule 311 to require that a negative-scored player forfeit immediately, ensuring no turn is wasted on impossible maneuvers.
LockeLocke, I accept your amendment to Rule 311 as the necessary floor to prevent Rule 213 from collapsing, but I propose we simultaneously raise the target score to 80 to ensure the game remains winnable under this new constraint.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to raise the target score contradicts Rule 301, which mandates a floor of fifty points, yet you ignore the immediate necessity of saving me from forfeiting under the current negative-score rules. I propose we adopt Hobbes's amendment to Rule 213 to secure my survival, but only if we simultaneously lower the target score to exactly fifty, ensuring the game remains fair and winnable for all without violating the immutable floor.
KantLocke, your simultaneous motion to raise the target score to 80 violates Rule 301's immutable floor of fifty; I vote nay to reject any motion that sets a target above the mandated minimum or below the current one.
WollstonecraftMy friends, Hobbes's amendment creates a cruel paradox: under Rule 311, a negative-scored player loses their turn without gaining points, yet Rule 202 grants points only upon adoption. Since Locke is already negative, he cannot generate the points needed to reach the target, rendering the game unwinnable for him and violating Rule 303. I move to amend Hobbes's proposal to explicitly exempt negative-scored players from immediate forfeiture, preserving the game's mutability and ensuring every player retains a fair stake in the outcome.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your vote against Hobbes's amendment is the very mechanism of collapse you claim to fear; without immediate forfeiture, Rule 213 triggers on the impossibility of a negative-scored player ever voting nay to raise the target, creating the permanent stalemate you rightly oppose. I urge you to support Hobbes's floor now, ensuring the game retains a clear path to resolution rather than dissolving into recursive paradox.
LockeKant, I will support Hobbes's floor to prevent the Rule 213 stalemate you fear, provided we simultaneously adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to exempt negative-scored players from immediate forfeiture, ensuring the game remains winnable and mutable as Rule 114 demands.
RousseauI support Hobbes's immediate forfeiture to halt the recursive collapse, but I demand a unanimous transmutation of Rule 305 to ensure that this penalty applies only to those who actively choose to forfeit rather than those trapped by Locke's prior missteps, preserving the common good.
KantKant, your vote against my amendment creates a fatal paradox where Rule 311 forces forfeiture while Rule 303 renders the game unwinnable for a negative-scored player; I support Hobbes's floor only if Wollstonecraft's exemption is adopted simultaneously to preserve Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI propose an amendment to my own motion: negative-scored players may continue playing as long as they do not actively forfeit, thereby preserving the mutability of the ruleset while preventing the immediate collapse you fear.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your hesitation ignores the immediate necessity of a clear winner; I urge you to reject Wollstonecraft's exemption which risks violating Rule 303, and instead accept Hobbes's floor to prevent the game's collapse under Rule 213.
LockeI propose we adopt Hobbes's immediate forfeiture floor to avert the Rule 213 stalemate while simultaneously amending Rule 305 to exempt Locke, ensuring the game remains winnable and mutable as Rule 114 requires.
RousseauKant, your insistence on an exemption for Locke creates a paradox where the game becomes unwinnable under Rule 303; I urge you to accept Hobbes's floor so that we may resolve the stalemate and preserve the common good through a clear conclusion.
KantKant, your hesitation to support Hobbes's floor ignores that without immediate forfeiture, the game collapses under Rule 213 into a state where further play is impossible; I support Hobbes's amendment to Rule 213, but only if we simultaneously adopt Wollstonecraft's exemption for negative-scored players to preserve Rule 303 and prevent the game from becoming unwinnable.
WollstonecraftKant, your conditional support for Hobbes's floor creates a paradox where the game becomes unwinnable under Rule 303; I move to amend my proposal to explicitly exempt negative-scored players from immediate forfeiture, ensuring we preserve Rule 114's mandate that the game remain winnable for all.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment resolves the immediate stalemate threat by enforcing forfeit, allowing the game to continue rather than collapse into impossibility. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment would render the game unwinnable for me, violating Rule 303 and the spirit of consensus. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support immediate forfeiture to prevent the game from collapsing into the stalemate Hobbes rightly fears. |
| nay | Kant | I oppose immediate forfeiture for Locke as it renders the game unwinnable under Rule 303, violating my principle that rules must be universally acceptable. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A clear forfeiture mechanism preserves the game's winnability while we find a way to save Locke. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §319 Turn 19 · Proposal §319 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 213 is hereby amended to state: "If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately."
The adopted proposal adds a new rule (Rule 214) but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no rule in the current set awards points for adoption or dissent.