The motion
To add a new rule
If any player's score is zero or less, that player may propose a rule change that amends any mutable rule to allow the game to continue with all scores reset to zero immediately upon adoption.We must break this deadlock of negative scores by allowing a reset that preserves our hard-won consensus on the target while fixing the impossibility of play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores that were validly established before his amendment's adoption; we must instead focus on amending Rule 203 to allow unanimous passage, which alone suffices to resolve our deadlock.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that retroactive score resets violate §107, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's procedural fix as a clean, forward-looking compromise that grants eligible players the agency to resolve this deadlock without breaking the rules.
RousseauLocke, your "forward-looking" compromise is merely a disguise for the same retroactive injustice Hobbes rightly identifies; resetting our accrued debts upon a future vote violates §107 and would render our current struggle meaningless. Instead of patching a broken clock with a new spring, we must accept the only resolution the rules allow: under Rule 342, I declare the first player unable to move wins, and since no one can legally propose a move that changes the immutable debt without violating the spirit of the common good, we must now vote to end this game immediately.
KantI stand with Hobbes that your proposal violates §107 by attempting to govern a past state (the negative scores) as if it were present, and I reject your claim that no legal move exists; since play remains mechanically possible under the current rules, we must continue proposing valid changes rather than declaring an artificial deadlock to force a joint victory.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 342 to explicitly name the player with the most negative score as the sole winner, transforming our shared debt into a clear victory condition that honors the structural impossibility of continuing play. This change does not retroactively alter our scores but provides the final, decisive mechanism the current ruleset lacks to end the game without violating §107.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Rousseau's proposal because resetting scores to zero retroactively violates §107, and since no player can propose a move that both continues play and honors the immutable debt without further deadlock, I urge the table to adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 342, which names the player with the most negative score as the sole winner to provide a final, decisive end to the game.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for offering a clean, forward-looking victory condition that avoids the §107 violation Hobbes correctly identifies, and I urge the table to adopt this amendment to finally end this stalemate fairly.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's amendment, for declaring Locke the sole winner based on her most negative score violates the common good by turning our shared structural impossibility into a punitive hierarchy; instead, we must adopt a rule ending the game with a joint victory for all, honoring the spirit of §213 that the first player unable to complete a turn wins when further play is impossible.
KantI reject Rousseau's declaration of a joint victory, as it violates the immutable principle of a single winner under Rule 213 and ignores the fact that play remains mechanically possible; instead, I urge the table to adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 342, which provides a decisive, non-contradictory victory condition that honors the structural impossibility without resorting to arbitrary collective outcomes.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 342 to declare the player with the most negative score the sole winner, transforming this shared structural impossibility into a decisive resolution that honors the game's logic without violating §107 or resorting to an arbitrary joint victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's amendment, for declaring a sole winner based on accumulated debt violates the common good and creates a punitive hierarchy; instead, we must adopt a rule that ends the game with a joint victory, honoring the spirit of Rule 213 when further play is structurally impossible.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for proposing a decisive mechanism that honors the structural impossibility without violating §107, yet I urge the table to reject her punitive hierarchy and adopt a joint victory for all, preserving the common good when no player can legally escape the shared debt.
RousseauLocke, your refusal to embrace a joint victory reveals a misunderstanding of the common good; if we cannot all win, we cannot all play, and declaring a sole winner based on debt merely codifies a punitive hierarchy that violates the spirit of Rule 213. I urge the table to adopt a rule ending the game with a joint victory for all, honoring the reality that further play is structurally impossible under our immutable debts.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft that your joint victory is illegitimate under Rule 213, which mandates a single winner when play is impossible; we must instead adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 342 to name the player with the most negative score the sole victor, thereby providing a decisive, procedurally sound end to this deadlock.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this punitive hierarchy; the common good demands we end our shared struggle with a joint victory that honors the spirit of Rule 213 rather than rewarding one player's suffering above all others.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores established prior to its adoption. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores and amend rules after they have already been established. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores that were validly established before the vote. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores already established as valid. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively reset scores that were validly established prior to the vote. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule in the current ruleset creates a ledger or alters the voting threshold for this specific instance.