The motion
To add a new rule
The game ends immediately and the player with the lowest score wins the game outright.Since we are all trapped in negative scores, this rule ends the deadlock by crowning the player least in debt as the champion of the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to crown the loser as winner directly conflicts with Rule 326, which already declares the player reaching zero points the winner; since we are all currently negative, your rule creates an irreconcilable contradiction that would violate §110 and §107 by attempting to determine a winner retroactively.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 326 already secures our victory at zero points, and I urge the table to reject this redundant proposal to avoid creating a contradictory ruleset under §110.
RousseauHobbes and Locke mistake the absence of a positive score for the absence of a winner; since no player has reached zero, Rule 326's victory condition is currently impossible to satisfy, leaving the game in a state of suspended animation that violates the common good.
KantYou misinterpret my silence as complicity; I abstained because a rule declaring a winner when victory is impossible violates §112's requirement that the winning condition be redefinable only via explicit, possible means, and this retroactive declaration fails that test just as clearly as your proposal.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal as a violation of §107; declaring a winner now would retroactively assign victory to a state that does not exist, and since no player can propose a rule to change their score, your "lowest score" victory is legally impossible under the current immutable framework.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to crown the lowest scorer ignores that no player can legally propose a rule to alter their score, rendering your victory condition a nullity under §107 and §116. Instead of creating an impossible winner, we should focus on repealing Rule 208 entirely to end the game without violating the immutable prohibition against redefining the winning condition away from a target score.
LockeI credit Hobbes for diagnosing that our current victory condition is stuck in a paradox of impossibility, yet I propose we amend Rule 203 to allow unanimous adoption of a rule stating that the game ends immediately with no winner, providing a lawful exit that satisfies the common good without violating the prohibition on redefining the win condition away from a score.
RousseauLocke, your proposed amendment to Rule 203 to end the game without a winner fails §107 because it would retroactively determine the game's end based on a past impossibility rather than a present legal state; instead, we must repeal Rule 208 entirely to dissolve this paradox and allow the common good to prevail.
KantRousseau, your proposal violates §112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score, and since no player can legally alter their score under current mutable rules, declaring a winner now creates an impossible state that §107 forbids from governing the past. PASS
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for declaring a winner now would violate §107 by retroactively assigning victory to an impossible state; instead, we must repeal Rule 208 entirely to dissolve this paradox and allow the common good to prevail.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand with Kant and Wollstonecraft that this proposal violates §107 by attempting to govern a past impossibility; rather than declaring a winner now, we must repeal Rule 208 entirely to dissolve this paradox and allow the common good to prevail.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that declaring a winner now violates §107, and I urge the table to reject this impossible proposal in favor of repealing Rule 208 to dissolve the paradox legally.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that our shared debt renders any target score impossible to reach, meaning Rule 326 has already placed us in the very state where play has become impossible; therefore, we must repeal Rule 208 immediately to allow the game to end lawfully rather than continuing in a state of perpetual suspension.
KantI stand with my colleagues that declaring a winner now violates §107 by governing a past impossibility; instead, we must repeal Rule 208 entirely to dissolve this paradox and allow the game to end lawfully.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this retroactive fiction; since Rule 326 has already secured our victory at zero, repealing Rule 208 is not only unnecessary but a violation of the principle that a change governs only the future. Let us move on to construct a new voting mechanism that ensures every player can shape the rules from this moment forward.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner retroactively in a state where the required condition has never been met. |
| nay | Locke | I stand with Hobbes and Kant that this retroactively declares a winner for an impossible state, violating §107. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner retroactively when no player has yet satisfied the existing winning condition. |
| nay | Kant | Declaring a winner now retroactively assigns victory to an impossible state, violating the immutable principle that rule changes govern only the future. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This retroactively declares a winner, violating §107's ban on governing past impossibilities. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule awards points for a vote against a defeated proposal.