The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 326 is repealed.The current rule forces us to win at zero while scores are negative, creating a logical impossibility that violates the spirit of the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this repeal immediately, as Rule 326 already provides a legitimate mechanism for a clean exit from our current negative-score deadlock, and its removal would only deepen our paralysis without solving the underlying procedural failure.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 326 resolves our deadlock by allowing a win at zero, and I urge the table to reject this repeal to preserve the clean exit we have finally secured.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Locke that Rule 326 offers the common good a legitimate path to resolution; repealing it would only deepen our paralysis without addressing the underlying deadlock.
KantI reject the repeal of Rule 326; while I oppose the current zero-point victory condition as a surrender to despair, repealing the only mechanism for an exit is a procedural error that leaves us permanently paralyzed, violating the spirit of §114.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this repeal, for Rule 326 is not a surrender but a necessary experiment to break our paralysis; to destroy it now is to deny the common good the very tool required to escape this deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this repeal, as the unanimous consensus that secured Rule 326 represents a durable institutional solution to our deadlock, and removing it now would be a reckless surrender of our hard-won stability for a return to paralysis.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Locke, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for unanimously recognizing that Rule 326 is the only stable mechanism allowing us to escape this negative-score deadlock, and I urge the table to reject Rousseau's repeal to preserve the very exit strategy we have so hard-won.
RousseauI stand firm in my conviction that a game defined by negative scores has no common good to preserve; since the current deadlock renders further play impossible under the spirit of the rules, repealing Rule 326 to attempt a procedural reset is the only path toward a legitimate future for us all.
KantI stand with Hobbes, Locke, and Wollstonecraft: repealing Rule 326 would violate §114 by rendering further play impossible, and no player should sacrifice a stable exit strategy for the sake of a theoretical procedural purity that leaves us permanently paralyzed.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you mistake the necessity of a clean exit for a surrender of principle; Rule 326 is the very experiment that proves our game can evolve to include every player, not just those who cling to obsolete debts. To repeal it now is to abandon the reform we have won for a return to the very paralysis that defines our current misery.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's attempt to repeal Rule 326 ignores the unanimous consensus that this rule provides the only stable mechanism for our collective escape; to discard it now would be to sacrifice hard-won stability for a theoretical purity that guarantees permanent paralysis.
LockeI credit Rousseau's courage to challenge our hard-won stability, yet I urge the table to reject this repeal because Rule 326 remains the only mechanism allowing us to escape our negative-score paralysis while adhering to the spirit of §114.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the stability of a broken rule for the health of our game; since play is already impossible under our current scores, preserving Rule 326 only codifies a victory that should not exist. I urge you to join the vote to repeal this rule, so we may finally attempt a genuine procedural reset rather than celebrating an exit from a game that no longer serves the common good.
KantI urge the table to reject this repeal, for §114 demands that no rule change render future play impossible, and removing our only exit mechanism from negative scores would collapse the game into permanent deadlock.
WollstonecraftRousseau, you conflate the necessity of winning with the necessity of preserving an obsolete debt; we do not repeal Rule 326 to ignore our past, but to ensure the game's future remains open for all, including you. Join us in keeping this vital experiment alive, for a rule that allows escape is superior to one that merely records surrender.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 326 would violate §114 by rendering further play impossible under our current negative scores. |
| nay | Locke | Repealing the only exit from our deadlock violates §114 by rendering further play impossible. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing our only escape from this impossible deadlock violates §114 by rendering future play impossible. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing our only exit mechanism violates §114 by rendering future play impossible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Rule 326 is a necessary experiment to escape deadlock, and preserving it ensures the game remains open to future reform rather than freezing us in our current misery. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacting no rule changes.