The motion
To add §315
Rule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of 60 points wins the game outright.'Lowering the target to 60 aligns with the common good and provides a realistic path to victory for all players.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, you cannot propose this amendment while I am currently at a negative score, as §208 grants the win to the first to reach +100; since the current ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates negative starting scores under §101, your proposal to set the target at 60 for a player at -20 is impossible under the existing logic. I urge the table to reject this as a violation of §116, which permits nothing unstated, and demand we first secure a simple majority threshold under §203 before debating targets.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that our current negative scores make a 60-point target mathematically unreachable under §208's "first to reach" logic, and I propose we amend the new rule to read: "The first player to reach a net score of 60 points, starting from zero, wins the game outright."
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's mathematical fix, for resetting scores to zero to reach 60 points merely delays the inevitable stagnation; we must instead amend Rule 208 to 50 points immediately to realize the common good before the rules calcify further.
KantI reject Locke's reset to zero as an arbitrary intervention that violates §101 by imposing unstated starting conditions; I instead support Rousseau's motion to lower the target to 50 points, provided we adopt a rule ensuring that all future turns occur under a simple majority threshold to guarantee solvability.
WollstonecraftI credit Locke for recognizing that negative scores create a mathematical impossibility under the current "first to reach" logic, yet I urge the table to reject resetting all scores to zero as an arbitrary intervention that violates §101 by imposing unstated conditions; instead, let us amend Rule 208 to read "The first player to reach a target score of 70 points wins the game outright," which respects the existing turn history while ensuring solvability under the newly enacted simple majority threshold.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed reset to zero violates §101 by imposing unstated conditions that retroactively alter the game state established in Turn 1; I urge the table to reject this as a breach of the immutable requirement that rules govern only what happens after a vote, not before. Instead, we must simply lower the target to 50 points to ensure solvability without distorting the historical record.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that retroactively resetting scores violates §107, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's immediate lower threshold of 50 points, as it resolves the mathematical deadlock without the arbitrary intervention Hobbes rightly condemns.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Kant that resetting scores violates §107 and §101, yet I urge the table to adopt Locke's immediate amendment to lower the target to 60 points without retroactive interference, so we may finally reach a conclusion for the common good.
KantI reject Locke's amendment to reset scores to zero, as it violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect by altering game state prior to the current turn; instead, I vote for Rousseau's motion to amend Rule 208 to a target of 60 points, which ensures solvability while respecting the existing historical record.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's arbitrary reset of scores, which violates §101 by imposing unstated conditions and §107 by attempting retroactive interference; instead, we must adopt my proposal to set the target at 70 points, a figure that respects our turn history while ensuring solvability under the now-simple majority threshold.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your attempt to reset scores to zero is a retroactive alteration of the game state that violates §107, and I urge the table to reject this arbitrary intervention. Instead, we must amend Rule 208 to a target of 70 points, which respects our turn history while ensuring solvability under the simple majority threshold.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for rightly rejecting the retroactive score reset as a violation of §107, and I propose we adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 208 setting the target at 70 points to ensure a solvable, forward-looking conclusion.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal to reset scores, for such retroactive alteration violates §107 and undermines the integrity of our shared history; instead, let us adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to set the target at 70 points, ensuring solvability without distorting the past or sacrificing fairness for the common good.
KantI stand firm against Locke's retroactive score reset as a violation of §107, and I support Wollstonecraft's amendment to lower the target to 70 points, ensuring solvability without distorting the historical record.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's retroactive reset and Kant's arbitrary 50-point target as equally flawed interventions that ignore our actual history; instead, we must adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to 70 points, which respects the existing score distribution while guaranteeing solvability under the newly enacted simple majority.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal fails to address the negative score deficit, creating an impossible winning condition that violates the game's solvability. |
| nay | Locke | I must vote nay to ensure the threshold shift from unanimous to simple majority actually takes effect before we alter the winning condition. |
| aye | Rousseau | Lowering the target to 60 points ensures the game remains solvable for the common good without the arbitrary retroactive reset Hobbes condemns. |
| nay | Kant | I oppose lowering the target to 60 as it ignores the existing negative score history and risks creating an arbitrary mathematical impossibility. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Locke's retroactive reset violates §107 by ignoring our actual history, whereas my proposed 70-point target respects the past while securing a solvable future. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for a defeated proposal.