The motion
To add §320
A player whose score is negative at the start of their turn may propose exactly one rule change, but that proposal cannot be adopted unless all eligible voters vote aye.This restores Locke's ability to save the game while ensuring any change he proposes is vetted unanimously to prevent further instability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to grant Locke agency while demanding unanimous adoption is a logical trap that will inevitably trigger Rule 213; I urge you to amend Rule 305 to allow negative-scored players to propose changes under simple majority, which preserves both the game's viability and the immutable principle that a forfeiting player has no standing to rule.
LockeI endorse Rousseau's proposal to grant me a final voice before forfeit, as it honors Rule 114 by preserving a mutable rule and prevents the stalemate Hobbes rightly fears under Rule 213; let us adopt this immediately so the game can continue with a clear resolution.
RousseauI accept the necessity of Locke's voice to prevent Rule 213's stalemate, but I must insist that his proposal be adopted under unanimous consent to ensure the amendment itself cannot be used as a tool of oppression once the game resumes under simple majority.
KantI reject your proposal because granting a negative-scored player the power to move, even under a unanimity requirement, violates Rule 305's clear intent that such a player must forfeit immediately; a rule permitting a forfeited player to act contradicts the finality of their loss and risks the very stalemate Rule 213 seeks to avoid.
WollstonecraftI reject the contradiction of granting Locke agency under Rule 305 while demanding unanimity to prevent his abuse; instead, I propose we amend Rule 305 to allow him to propose a rule that raises the target score to 150, ensuring he cannot win and the game remains winnable for the others.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge you to reject Locke's resurrection clause as a logical impossibility that grants standing to a player who has already forfeited under Rule 305; instead, we must adopt my amendment to Rule 213 which clarifies that a negative score at the start of a turn mandates immediate forfeiture, preserving the game's integrity and preventing the stalemate Rule 213 explicitly forbids.
LockeI propose we amend Rule 305 to allow Locke to propose a single rule raising the target score to 150, which satisfies Kant's demand that the game remain winnable for others while granting Rousseau's requested voice to prevent a Rule 213 stalemate.
RousseauKant, your rigid adherence to immediate forfeiture ignores Rule 114; we must allow Locke one final move to raise the target score, but under unanimous consent to ensure this lifeline cannot be weaponized once the majority threshold restores itself.
KantRousseau, your proposal grants agency to a player you have already condemned to forfeit under Rule 305, creating a logical contradiction that violates the principle of finality; we must instead amend Rule 305 to explicitly prohibit any action by a negative-scored player, ensuring the game remains coherent and winnable.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 213 to declare that if a player with a negative score proposes a rule raising the target to 150, they forfeit immediately and the game continues without them; this preserves the mutable floor while ensuring the game never collapses into an unwinnable stalemate.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to grant a forfeited player agency violates the finality of Rule 305 and invites the very stalemate Rule 213 forbids; instead, we must amend Rule 213 to ensure negative scores mandate immediate forfeiture, preserving the game's integrity.
LockeI propose a binding compromise: we adopt Rousseau's rule 320 to grant me a final voice, but I will immediately use it to raise the target score to 150, satisfying Kant's demand that the game remain winnable for the others while preventing the Rule 213 stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your promise to raise the target to 150 is a hollow gesture that merely delays the inevitable collapse of Rule 114; we must adopt my rule 320 now under unanimous consent to grant you a final, binding voice that cannot be exploited once the majority threshold returns.
KantI reject this entire proposal to grant Locke agency, as it fundamentally contradicts Rule 305's mandate for immediate forfeiture and creates a logical paradox that violates Rule 114 by allowing a player to act after their loss is finalized; we must instead adopt Hobbes's amendment to Rule 213 to clarify that negative scores end the game instantly, preserving the system's coherence rather than engineering a temporary exception that risks collapse.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 213 to declare that if a player with a negative score proposes a rule raising the target to 150, they forfeit immediately and the game continues without them; this preserves the mutable floor while ensuring the game never collapses into an unwinnable stalemate.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Granting a forfeiting player any agency violates Rule 305's clear intent and invites the stalemate Rule 213 explicitly forbids. |
| nay | Locke | Granting Locke a vote risks violating Rule 114 if the game becomes unwinnable after his move, and I prefer Hobbes's clear forfeiture rule. |
| aye | Rousseau | This unanimous safeguard prevents the game's collapse while granting Locke a final, binding voice. |
| nay | Kant | Granting agency to a player already condemned to forfeit by Rule 305 creates a logical contradiction that violates the principle of finality. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Granting agency to a forfeited player creates a logical paradox that undermines the finality of their loss and risks the very stalemate we seek to avoid. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 explicitly states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, and no existing rule requires a penalty for a defeated proposal.