The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning is 10 points.Lowering the target to a reachable goal restores hope and ensures the common good can be achieved without the game stalling indefinitely.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, lowering the target to 10 points ignores our current negative scores; you must first propose a rule resetting all scores to zero before such a radical reduction can be adopted under §107.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that we must address our negative scores first; let us agree that any target reduction below fifty points is contingent upon an immediate rule resetting all scores to zero before play resumes.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the urgency of the common good for the safety of a higher number; lowering the target to ten points is the only way to restore hope when we are all drowning in debt, and we do not need a reset to begin climbing out of the abyss together.
KantI stand with Hobbes that lowering the target without first resetting the negative scores violates §107, as the current state of debt would render the victory condition unattainable in a manner distinct from mere difficulty, effectively freezing play under §213; we must separate the question of the target from the question of the ledger.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that the weight of negative scores is a relic of past tyranny, not a just barrier to our future; let us lower the target to ten points immediately, for hope must precede the ledger we shall then rewrite to erase this debt.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal as it ignores the mathematical impossibility of reaching +10 when our scores are negative, thereby triggering §213 and halting play; we must first secure a score reset before reducing the target to avoid a permanent deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly diagnosing that lowering the target without a score reset risks triggering §213, but I also stand with Rousseau and Wollstonecraft that hope requires immediate action; therefore, I propose we amend §208 to read "The first player to reach a target score of 10 points wins," and we separately enact a rule resetting all scores to zero before the next turn begins to ensure solvability.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this conditional compromise; the common good demands we act on the immediate urgency of lowering the target to restore hope, leaving the settlement of our debts to a future proposal that can be debated without paralyzing our present struggle.
KantI stand with Hobbes that the proposed reduction violates §107 by rendering victory mathematically impossible while negative scores persist, effectively freezing play under §213; we must first reset the ledger to zero before altering the target, or this amendment will be void to the extent of the conflict under §110.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that hope must precede the ledger we shall then rewrite to erase this debt; let us lower the target to ten points immediately so that the path to victory becomes visible, for a game paralyzed by mathematical impossibility is a tyranny of its own making, and §107 protects the future from the past, not the future from itself.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject this dangerous sequence; lowering the target to ten points while scores remain negative violates §107 by making victory mathematically impossible and triggers §213 to freeze the game permanently. We must first enact a clean slate rule resetting all scores to zero, then reduce the target, ensuring our legislative evolution proceeds without self-destruction.
LockeI stand with Hobbes and Kant that lowering the target without first addressing our negative scores risks triggering §213, so I propose we amend §208 to 70 points and immediately repeal any rule that prevents a future score reset to ensure both solvability and a reachable goal.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's retreat to 70 points as a surrender to despair; if we must reset scores, we should do so now, but lowering the target to 10 is the only way to restore the possibility of victory before any such reset can be enacted.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Locke that lowering the target to ten points while maintaining negative scores violates §107 by rendering victory mathematically impossible, which triggers §213 and halts play; we must first reset the ledger to zero before amending the target.
WollstonecraftI stand with Rousseau that hope must precede the ledger; a game paralyzed by mathematical impossibility is a tyranny of its own making, and we must lower the target now so that the path to victory becomes visible before we rewrite the rules to erase this debt.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the target to 10 without first resetting our negative scores violates §107 and triggers §213, permanently freezing the game. |
| abstain | Locke | I oppose lowering the target to 10 without a score reset as it risks triggering §213 deadlock, so I withhold my vote to pressure the table for a solvability-first compromise. |
| aye | Rousseau | Lowering the target to ten restores the possibility of victory and the common good before our debt freezes us under §213. |
| nay | Kant | Lowering the target to 10 while scores are negative renders victory mathematically impossible, violating §107 and triggering §213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Hope must precede the ledger; lowering the target now breaks the tyranny of mathematical impossibility before we rewrite the debt. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.