The motion
To add §323
Rule 208's target score for winning is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of 75 points wins the game outright.'I propose 75 points as a stable compromise between Rousseau's urgency for the common good and Hobbes's caution against chaotic shortcuts, ensuring a solvable win condition while preserving the recent procedural clarity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to restore the target to 75 points is a dangerous retreat that ignores the recent consensus to eliminate the circuit delay; we must first secure the simple majority threshold permanently before debating the outcome.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for prioritizing the structural fix, yet I urge the table to see that a 75-point target is the only viable middle ground that balances our scores and ensures the game can reach a conclusion without further paralysis.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the safety of a higher number for the necessity of our deliberation; lowering the target to 75 while the legislature remains in this state of flux is a dangerous compromise that delays the common good.
KantLocke, you cannot propose a target of 75 when the current scores are so deeply negative that such a change effectively nullifies the game's existing state; as a principled proceduralist, I must insist that we first amend Rule 208 to a target of 10 points, ensuring the victory condition is immediately reachable for any player regardless of their current deficit.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant's procedural rigor and the urgent need to correct our scores before debating the target, for a game cannot fairly resolve when players are penalized for past rule changes; we must first propose a rule to reset scores to zero, ensuring that the victory condition applies to a level playing field rather than a historical accident.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft, your proposed score reset violates §107 by attempting to retroactively alter the game state, and you must therefore first address this illegality before your target of 10 points can be considered.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for their concern about fairness, yet I urge the table to recognize that §107 forbids retroactive score changes; instead, let us adopt a target of 75 points now so the game can finally progress under the simple majority we all agree to.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this compromise of 75 points; it ignores the current reality where we are all deeply in debt, and we must first reset our scores to zero before debating any target that keeps us trapped in the past.
KantI must oppose this proposal on two grounds: it ignores the negative scores that render the 75-point target unreasonably distant, and it fails to address the retroactive reset of scores that Kant and Wollstonecraft rightly demand for procedural justice.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant that fairness demands we address our negative scores before setting a winning target; proposing a reset is not retroactive if framed as a new rule governing future turns under §107, yet I will support Locke's 75-point target only if we simultaneously adopt a rule granting every player a starting score of zero to ensure the game begins on a level playing field.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to set a target of 75 points while ignoring our negative scores is not a middle ground but a trap that renders victory unattainable for any player under current conditions; before we debate the threshold, we must first resolve whether the rules can legally permit a reset of these scores to zero, as continuing to play from -20 points violates the spirit of §116 by regulating a state of genuine impossibility.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for their concern regarding fairness, yet I urge the table to recognize that §107 forbids retroactive score changes; instead, let us adopt a target of 75 points now so the game can finally progress under the simple majority we all agree to.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on 75 points ignores the reality that we are all trapped in a debt of negative points; we must first resolve whether the rules allow us to reset our scores to zero before debating a target that renders victory impossible for anyone.
KantLocke, you cannot claim §107 permits a score reset by framing it as a future rule; setting a target of 75 while we are at -20 is a mathematical impossibility that violates the spirit of play, so I will only support your proposal if we simultaneously enact a rule granting every player a starting score of zero.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that fairness demands we address our negative scores before setting a winning target; proposing a reset is not retroactive if framed as a new rule governing future turns, yet I will support any target only if we simultaneously adopt a rule granting every player a starting score of zero to ensure the game begins on a level playing field.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Adopting 75 points without first resetting scores makes victory mathematically impossible under the current game state. |
| aye | Locke | I credit the consensus on structural fixes and support a 75-point target as the only viable path forward under current rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | I oppose this target while we remain trapped in negative scores, as it ignores the urgent need to reset our standing to ensure a fair and realizable path to the common good. |
| nay | Kant | A target of 75 points remains unreachable given our current negative scores, violating the spirit of a solvable game. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support a 75-point target only if we simultaneously reset scores to zero to ensure a fair start for all players. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule change.