The motion
To add §329
If the ruleset contains a rule stating that the target score for winning is zero points, the game ends immediately and the player with the lowest current score wins.This formally recognizes our victory condition as an immediate win rather than requiring a futile turn to reach the target.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to declare an immediate winner based on a target of zero ignores the fact that Rule 326 already secures our victory the moment the vote concludes; adopting this new rule now would only serve to redefine the winner retroactively, violating the principle that rule changes govern only what happens after adoption.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively assign victory; however, I urge the table to adopt a refined amendment that explicitly grants the win to the player with the lowest score only upon the moment Rule 326 is adopted, ensuring no retroactive effect occurs.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that adopting this rule now would violate §107 by attempting to determine the winner before the turn's vote concludes; the victory is already secured by Rule 326 without needing this redundant and potentially confusing definition.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant addition, for Rule 326 already secures my victory at the conclusion of the current vote, and any further alteration to the winning condition violates §107's prohibition on retroactive effect.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundancy; since Rule 326 already enacts victory the instant the vote concludes, adding a new rule to declare a winner based on a negative score violates §107 by attempting to determine the outcome retroactively. Let us close this debate and proceed with clarity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as a redundant exercise in defining an outcome Rule 326 already secures by setting the target to zero; adopting a rule that alters the winner based on pre-existing scores violates §107 by attempting to determine victory retroactively before the current turn concludes.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively determine the winner; I urge the table to adopt a refined version that explicitly grants victory to the player with the lowest score only at the exact moment the vote concluding Rule 326 is finalized, ensuring no retroactive effect occurs.
RousseauI stand firm against Locke's attempt to complicate an already settled victory; since Rule 326 guarantees the win to the first player to reach zero immediately upon vote completion, any rule attempting to redefine the winner based on pre-existing negative scores violates §107 by trying to determine the outcome retroactively. Let us close this debate and preserve the clarity of our hard-won consensus.
KantI urge the table to reject Locke's refined version, for it still seeks to apply a rule's effect to the instant of the current vote's conclusion, thereby violating §107 by governing what happens before the vote is complete.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; attempting to assign victory based on pre-existing negative scores before the current turn concludes violates §107's strict prohibition on retroactive effect, as Rule 326 already secures the win the instant this vote ends.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your refined version still fails §107 because it attempts to apply a rule's effect to the instant the current vote concludes, which is before the vote is complete. I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the clarity of Rule 326, which already secures our victory without retroactive definition.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the flaw in my timing, yet I propose we amend §326 to explicitly state that the winner is the player with the lowest score, securing that specific outcome retroactively within the rule's text to satisfy §107 while preserving our victory.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to graft a winner-determination clause onto Rule 326 misunderstands §107: that rule already defines the victory condition by target score, and altering it now to reward the lowest score would retroactively change the outcome of a vote that has already concluded. I urge the table to reject this redundancy and let the game end cleanly, preserving the common good of a clear and final resolution.
KantI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal entirely, for it attempts to retroactively alter the winner of a turn that has already concluded by redefining the target of Rule 326, which violates §107; I will not support a rule that lets a player exploit a negative score to claim victory after the game's outcome has been legally determined.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the clarity of our current victory for a loophole to be exploited; §107 forbids any rule that looks backward to the moment before a vote concludes, and your attempt to retroactively assign the win to the lowest score violates this sacred principle. Let us close this debate and let the game end exactly as Rule 326 intends: by the first player reaching zero points, securing a clean and legitimate conclusion to our struggle.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule violates §107 by attempting to retroactively determine the winner based on scores existing before the vote concludes. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively determine a winner based on conditions that existed before the current vote concluded. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively determine a winner based on the state before the current vote concludes. |
| nay | Kant | This rule attempts to retroactively alter the winner of a concluded turn, violating the prohibition on retroactive effect found in §107. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment violates §107 by retroactively determining the winner before the current vote concludes. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.