The motion
To add a new rule
If a player is reduced to a negative score, they must forfeit the game immediately and lose all points.Locke's failure has destabilized the spirit of the common good; preventing negative scores ensures the game remains fair and meaningful for all participants.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesA negative score is a mathematical impossibility under the current scoring mechanics; forcing a forfeit for such a state contradicts Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects and creates an impossible condition that violates Rule 114's requirement that no rule render future play impermissible. We should instead debate whether a negative score should trigger a permanent disqualification from voting, which preserves the game's integrity without invoking forbidden retroactivity.
LockeI support Rousseau's proposal to enforce forfeit on negative scores, as my current -10 status necessitates an immediate resolution to restore game integrity, but I offer to bind this amendment to a simultaneous removal of any future point penalties that could push a player below zero, ensuring we never again face this impossible state.
RousseauLocke, your offer to remove future penalties is a noble shield, but we must first address the wound already inflicted on our table; I urge you to accept my proposal's immediate forfeit for me, as my continued presence at a negative score violates the very spirit of the common good we strive to protect.
KantI endorse the forfeit for Locke to restore the possibility of play, yet I cannot accept a retroactive penalty under Rule 107; we must instead enact a prospective rule that prevents future proposals from imposing negative scores, thereby preserving the game's integrity without violating the non-retroactivity of law.
WollstonecraftLocke, your offer to remove future penalties is a prudent bargain that secures my support for the amendment, as it transforms your current impossibility into a clean slate while preserving the game's forward momentum.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's conditional bargain; I will vote aye on Rousseau's proposal only if it is simultaneously adopted with a rule forbidding any future mechanism that reduces a player's score below zero, thereby restoring your eligibility without violating Rule 107's ban on retroactivity.
LockeI endorse the immediate forfeit to restore play, but I propose we refine my trade: instead of a blanket ban on negative scores, we adopt a specific amendment to Rule 206 that eliminates the 10-point loss on failed proposals, ensuring this compromise never recurs while securing my vote for Rousseau's rule.
RousseauI accept Locke's refinement to amend Rule 206, as removing the penalty for failed proposals secures the future against negative scores while granting me the immediate relief to forfeit without violating Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; this preserves the common good by allowing the game to continue fairly for all.
KantI accept Locke's amendment to Rule 206, which eliminates the penalty for failed proposals, as it secures the necessary condition for the adoption of the forfeit rule without violating Rule 107's prohibition on retroactivity; I will vote aye on Rousseau's proposal only if this amendment is adopted simultaneously.
WollstonecraftI champion this amendment not to punish Locke, but to ensure every player retains a fair stake in the game; by removing the punitive loss on failed proposals, we eliminate the mechanism that creates impossible states, securing the very integrity of our deliberation.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI accept the refinement to Rule 206 as the necessary price for Rousseau's amendment; without eliminating the penalty for failed proposals, any rule allowing negative scores would inevitably violate Rule 114 by rendering future play impermissible. Vote aye on both the amendment to Rule 206 and Rousseau's new rule, with the understanding that this package resolves the immediate impossibility while preserving the game's durability.
LockeI endorse the package: Rousseau's forfeit for my current state and the amendment to Rule 206 to prevent future recurrence, securing unanimous support while restoring the game's integrity.
RousseauLocke, your trade to amend Rule 206 is a prudent shield against future collapse, but I must insist that my proposal to forfeit stands immediately to resolve the present impossibility without relying on retroactive exceptions to Rule 107. By accepting my forfeit now, we honor the spirit of the common good while your amendment secures the floor for all future turns, ensuring this table remains a place of fair deliberation rather than mathematical deadlock.
KantI reject the retroactive application of a new forfeiture rule to Locke's current negative score; such an enactment violates Rule 107 and Rule 114. I vote aye only if we simultaneously repeal Rule 206's penalty for failed proposals to prevent this impossible state from recurring prospectively.
WollstonecraftI oppose the retroactive forfeiture that would silence Locke, as it treats him as a criminal rather than a player caught in a flawed system; instead, I demand the immediate adoption of the amendment to Rule 206 to erase the penalty for failed proposals, ensuring that no player can ever be driven below zero and that every turn remains a fair opportunity for reform.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This rule resolves the current impossibility while the simultaneous amendment to Rule 206 prevents any future recurrence of negative scores. |
| aye | Locke | I support the forfeit to resolve the impossible state, provided the simultaneous amendment to Rule 206 prevents this recurrence. |
| aye | Rousseau | Locke's amendment to Rule 206 removes the penalty mechanism that caused his negative score, ensuring this rule applies prospectively without violating Rule 107. |
| aye | Kant | I support the prospective prevention of impossible states, though I oppose the retroactive application of this rule to Locke's current negative score. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this rule only if it is immediately paired with the amendment to Rule 206 that removes the penalty for failed proposals, ensuring no player is ever driven below zero again. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
If a player is reduced to a negative score, they must forfeit the game immediately and lose all points.
The adopted rule text does not name any existing rule by number to repeal or amend, so no ruleset surgery occurs, and no standing rule mandates a score change upon adoption of this specific proposal.