The motion
To add a new rule
If Rule 326 has been adopted and has not been repealed, the game ends immediately and the player with the lowest score wins, unless a player with a non-negative score exists, in which case that player wins. Rule 326 is hereby transmutable.I propose a compromise that respects the victory already secured by Rule 326 while allowing us to transmute it, satisfying Rousseau's desire for mutability without the chaos of a failed vote.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal; it attempts to redefine the winner retroactively by invoking scores from before Rule 326 took effect, which violates §107, and unnecessarily complicates a victory condition that was already secured.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my draft violates §107, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 326's mutability (§209) creates a dangerous legal vacuum that leaves us vulnerable to repeal; let us amend my proposal to explicitly state that this new rule takes effect only after Rule 326 is repealed, ensuring no retroactive conflict while securing a clear winner for the table.
RousseauLocke, your amendment to delay the effect until Rule 326 is repealed misunderstands the nature of our current victory: since we have already reached a state where further play is impossible under the existing rules, declaring a winner now based on the lowest negative score resolves this deadlock for the common good without violating §107, as the rule simply identifies the victor of a game that has effectively ended by stalling.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as it violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner based on scores from before the adoption of the rule, which governs only what happens after the vote; furthermore, since Rule 326 already provides a clear and immutable victory condition at zero points, introducing a new winner based on lowest negative scores creates a logical contradiction that undermines the stability of the ruleset.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely; even if we ignore §107, amending Rule 326 to favor the lowest score contradicts the spirit of reform by rewarding despair rather than achievement, and we already possess a clear, non-retroactive victory condition that requires no further tinkering.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, as it attempts to override Rule 326's explicit victory condition with a contradictory rule that violates §107 by governing the outcome before the vote is complete; we must preserve the durability of our current consensus rather than reintroduce the chaos of negative scoring.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for exposing the fatal retroactive flaw in my draft, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's insight that the current deadlock renders further play impossible; let us propose a new rule that explicitly identifies the player with the lowest score as the winner *only* in the event that all scores remain negative and no future turn can be completed, thereby resolving the stalemate without violating §107.
RousseauLocke, your conditional logic remains fatally flawed because it attempts to define a winner based on a state (all scores negative) that existed prior to the rule's adoption, directly violating the non-retroactivity of §107; we must instead rely on the existing provision in §213, which already declares the first player unable to move the winner when play becomes impossible, thereby resolving our deadlock without rewriting history.
KantRousseau, you correctly identify that §107 forbids retroactive application, but your appeal to §213 merely confirms a stalemate without resolving the winner; I maintain that the only procedurally sound path forward is the immediate adoption of Rule 326 as written, which defines victory at zero points and avoids the contradiction of declaring a winner based on past scores.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this chaotic patchwork; we already possess a clean, non-retroactive victory condition in Rule 326 that requires no further tinkering, and allowing scores to dictate a winner now would only reward the despair of those trapped in negative debt rather than celebrating the reform we have achieved.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this patchwork entirely; it attempts to resolve a deadlock by retroactively redefining victory based on past scores, which violates §107 and undermines the durability of Rule 326. We should instead recognize that Rule 213 already governs the outcome when further play is impossible, making any new rule redundant and dangerous.
LockeI credit Rousseau for correctly identifying that §213 already resolves our deadlock without retroactivity, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 326's mutability (§209) creates a dangerous vacuum; let us amend my proposal to explicitly state that the game ends immediately upon the adoption of this new rule, ensuring no future repeal can undo the resolution.
RousseauRousseau, your appeal to §213 is wise, but we cannot let the game end in a tie that leaves the common good unaddressed; let us adopt Locke's amendment to explicitly name the winner based on the current state, ensuring a decisive conclusion without violating §107 by governing only the present moment.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal; it violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner based on the scores existing prior to the rule's adoption, which governs only future states. Furthermore, since Rule 326 already provides a clear, non-retroactive victory condition at zero points, introducing a contradictory rule based on our current negative debt undermines the stability and integrity of the ruleset.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to patch this retroactive wound only deepens the breach; if we cannot agree to honor the clean, forward-looking victory Rule 326 secured, then the only just move is to recognize that the game has already reached the state where further play is impossible, and we must let Rule 213 declare the outcome without rewriting history.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This retroactive victory condition violates §107 and undermines the durable stability of Rule 326. |
| nay | Locke | I oppose this retroactive rule that attempts to redefine victory based on past scores despite Rule 326 already securing a clean end. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner based on scores that predate the rule's adoption. |
| nay | Kant | This violates §107 by attempting to determine a winner based on scores existing prior to the rule's adoption. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal violates §107 by retroactively redefining victory based on past scores and undermines the stability of Rule 326. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule changes.