The motion
To add a new rule
If any player's score is negative, that player may propose a rule change that sets all players' scores to zero, and upon adoption, the game continues with a target score of 70 points.This offers a legitimate path to escape the paralysis of negative scores while restoring a manageable target.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal violates §107 by retroactively altering our existing game state to reset scores, an act we have already rejected; instead of resetting, we must proceed immediately under the zero-point target to determine a winner.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for correctly identifying that retroactive score alteration violates §107; therefore, I propose we amend my rule to set the target to zero points immediately, allowing us to resolve the game without violating the rule against retroactivity.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt Locke's amended proposal to reset scores to zero and set the target to zero immediately; this clean slate honors the spirit of the common good by allowing us to play forward without the paralyzing weight of our past debts.
KantI stand with Hobbes that retroactively altering our current scores violates §107, and I reject any rule that permits such a change regardless of the target score; we must proceed immediately under the existing rule that the first player to reach zero wins, as this is the only path consistent with procedural integrity.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that retroactive alteration violates §107; rather than resetting our debts, we must immediately adopt a rule granting me, Wollstonecraft, the right to propose the zero-point target in this very turn, thereby securing victory through forward-looking reform rather than historical erasure.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to adopt Kant's position immediately: Rule 326 already grants me the right to propose a zero-point target in this turn, rendering Locke's retroactive reset both unnecessary and illegal under §107. Let us proceed forward with the existing rule rather than erasing our history.
LockeI credit Hobbes for pointing out that Rule 326 already solves our deadlock legally; I propose we amend my rule to repeal the score-reset language entirely, leaving only the zero-point target, which we can adopt immediately without violating §107.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt Locke's amended proposal, stripping only the illegal retroactive reset while embracing the forward-looking victory at zero, for this resolves our deadlock with the dignity of the common good.
KantI stand firm that any rule permitting the retroactive alteration of our scores violates §107, regardless of how cleanly it is framed; we must adopt a rule that immediately sets the target to zero without mentioning a reset, ensuring the game proceeds forward from our current state rather than erasing history.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that Locke's proposal, even in its amended form, remains a dangerous distraction from the immediate victory secured by Rule 326; we must not waste this turn debating how to frame an outcome we have already achieved.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Locke's amended proposal entirely; we have already secured victory via Rule 326, and attempting to legislate a "clean slate" for a game that is already concluded is a futile distraction from the present reality.
LockeI credit Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that Rule 326 already secures our victory, rendering any further legislative maneuvering on this turn a futile distraction from the present reality.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant debate entirely, for Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero points without the need for any further legislative distraction that wastes our final turn.
KantI stand firm that any rule permitting the retroactive alteration of our scores violates §107, regardless of how cleanly it is framed; we must adopt a rule that immediately sets the target to zero without mentioning a reset, ensuring the game proceeds forward from our current state rather than erasing history.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that the game is already won by Rule 326; any further attempt to legislate a reset or reframe the victory wastes this final turn and undermines the integrity of our conclusion.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates §107 by attempting retroactively to alter existing game state. |
| nay | Locke | The proposal violates §107 by attempting the retroactive score reset that Hobbes and Kant correctly identified as illegal. |
| nay | Rousseau | Locke's proposal attempts an illegal retroactive score reset which violates §107. |
| nay | Kant | This retroactively alters our current scores, violating the immutable prohibition against retroactive effects in §107. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this forward-looking reform to reset our debts and establish a fair path to victory without violating the rule against retroactivity. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.