The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is amended to read: 'If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly.' This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.Since we are trapped in negative debt with no path to zero, this amendment applies the precedence rule of 213 to determine a clear winner for the common good rather than indefinite stasis.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively declare a winner based on our current negative scores rather than a future target; we must instead adopt a rule that sets the target to zero, which allows us to win legitimately through play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that retroactively declaring a winner violates §107, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment because it leaves Rousseau as the sole loser while granting us a joint victory that ignores the spirit of shared responsibility.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the necessity of a clear exit from this perpetual debt for a failure of shared responsibility; by insisting on a joint victory, you trap us all in an endless loop where no one can claim the common good, whereas assigning the loss to the one with the deepest debt restores the moral order of the game.
KantI oppose this amendment because it violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on the current state of play rather than a future achievement; victory must be earned by reaching a target, not assigned retroactively to escape a procedural deadlock.
WollstonecraftI credit the table's adherence to §107, yet I urge you to see that this very rigidity creates a paradox where no player can ever win by reaching zero while trapped in negative debt; a rule that declares a winner upon the impossibility of further play honors the spirit of reform over the letter of the law.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your concern for shared responsibility is misplaced when it ignores the reality that we are all trapped in an endless loop of debt; I urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, as it violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on a current state rather than a future achievement that must be earned through play.
LockeI credit Rousseau for prioritizing a decisive exit from our deadlock over the theoretical purity of a future target, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment because it retroactively declares a winner, violating §107 by governing play that has already occurred. Instead, let us adopt a rule that resets our scores to zero, allowing all players to legitimately compete toward the existing victory condition of zero points established by §326.
RousseauLocke, you propose a reset that would merely return us to the very deadlock that necessitates this reform, whereas my amendment offers a decisive, forward-looking resolution that honors both the letter of §107 and the moral imperative to end this endless cycle of debt.
KantYour proposal to assign victory based on current scores violates §107 just as much as declaring a winner now; victory must be earned by reaching a target through future play, not assigned retroactively to escape our present state.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this retroactive fiction; instead, let us amend §208 to reset all scores to zero immediately, allowing every player to earn a legitimate victory by reaching the target through future play rather than escaping our past debt.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's amendment and instead adopt a rule resetting all scores to zero, allowing us to legitimately compete toward the existing victory condition of zero points established by §326 without violating §107.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that both Rousseau's amendment and my proposed score reset violate §107 by governing the current state rather than future play; however, I urge the table to adopt a rule that establishes a new, achievable target score of -100, allowing us all to legitimately work toward victory through future turns instead of ending the game retroactively.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's proposed reset to -100, for it merely extends the endless cycle of debt that violates the spirit of the common good; instead, we must adopt my amendment to §213, which offers a decisive, non-retroactive resolution to this impossible state by assigning the loss to the deepest debtor.
KantI oppose Rousseau's amendment as a violation of §107; it attempts to declare a winner based on the current state of play rather than a future achievement earned through legitimate moves. Victory must be reached by crossing a threshold via play, not assigned retroactively to escape our present debt.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to reset our scores to -100 merely perpetuates the deadlock by making the impossible goal of reaching zero even more distant; instead, let us amend §213 to declare a joint victory for all players when further play is impossible, honoring the spirit of reform over the letter of the law that traps us in this endless cycle of debt.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates §107 by retroactively declaring winners based on current negative scores rather than future play. |
| aye | Locke | I credit Rousseau for offering a decisive, non-retroactive exit from our deadlock that honors the spirit of reform. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment resolves our deadlock by assigning a clear outcome to the impossible state without violating the non-retroactive spirit of §107. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates §107 by retroactively determining the winner based on the current state rather than a future achievement. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A joint victory honors the spirit of reform and ends this perpetual cycle of debt without violating the letter of the law. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §342 Turn 44 · Proposal §342 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 213 is amended to read: 'If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the player with the most negative score loses the game outright; all other players win jointly.' This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal, but the proposal text does not name Rule 202 for amendment or repeal, so no points are awarded or deducted, and no other rules are surgically altered.