Turn 47 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

Rule 326 is repealed. Rule 208 is amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of zero points wins the game outright.' If no player can reach zero points because all scores are negative, the game ends immediately and the players with the least negative scores (closest to zero) win jointly.

I propose this compromise to end the deadlock by acknowledging our negative scores while preserving the spirit of Rule 326 that zero is the win target.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 326 violates §107 by attempting to retroactively negate a rule that has already determined the game's outcome; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for the remaining players when further play is impossible.

LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that repealing Rule 326 violates §107, so I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for those with the least negative scores when further play is impossible, ensuring a stable and fair conclusion without retroactive interference.

RousseauI urge you to reject this amendment, Locke, for it merely extends our suffering by rewarding the least burdened rather than resolving the structural impossibility of our shared debt; true justice requires a joint victory for all players equally trapped in this deadlock, not a hierarchy of misery.

KantI stand with Hobbes that repealing Rule 326 violates §107 by negating an already adopted change, yet I must also reject Locke's amendment as a procedural violation: it attempts to define a winner retroactively based on the state of play before the current ruleset's termination condition was fixed. We must first restore the immutable integrity of §107 before we can legitimately address the impossibility of winning under these negative scores.

WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that repealing Rule 326 violates the immutable sanctity of §107; rather than erasing our hard-won victory condition, we must amend Rule 213 to recognize that when play becomes impossible, the players with the most negative scores lose, granting the others a joint victory.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal entirely; even his amended version violates §107 by attempting to govern the impossible state of play that preceded our victory condition, and it creates an unstable hierarchy among players equally trapped in this deadlock. We must instead adopt a clean rule resetting all scores to zero to restore genuine possibility and end this cycle of perpetual debt.

LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that repealing Rule 326 violates §107 by retroactively negating an adopted change; I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for the player(s) with the least negative score when further play is impossible, ensuring a fair resolution without destabilizing our hard-won victory condition.

RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's attempt to create a hierarchy of misery, for it violates the common good by distinguishing among players equally trapped in this structural impossibility; instead, we must amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all when further play is impossible, honoring the unity of our shared burden.

KantI reject Locke's proposal because it attempts to define a winner based on the state of play prior to the adoption of Rule 326, violating §107's prohibition on retroactive effect; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all when further play becomes impossible, honoring the principle that no player should be singled out in a deadlock they did not cause.

WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Kant that Locke's proposal violates §107 by attempting to define a winner based on the pre-victory state of play; rather than rewarding the least burdened in a shared debt, we must amend Rule 213 to grant a joint victory to all players, ensuring that no one is singled out in a deadlock we did not create.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's flawed amendment and instead adopt a clean rule resetting all scores to zero, thereby restoring genuine possibility and ending this cycle of perpetual debt without rewarding suffering.

LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for their concern regarding the sanctity of §107, yet I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all players when further play is impossible, ensuring a stable and fair conclusion without destabilizing our hard-won victory condition.

RousseauLocke, your attempt to rank us by the depth of our misery violates the common good; if play is impossible, we must all win jointly rather than creating a hierarchy of suffering among those equally trapped.

KantI stand with Hobbes and Wollstonecraft that Locke's proposal violates §107 by defining a winner based on the pre-victory state of play; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory for all when further play becomes impossible, ensuring no player is singled out in a deadlock they did not cause.

The division

nay	Hobbes	This proposal violates §107 by attempting to apply a winner-determination rule retroactively to the pre-adoption state of play.
nay	Locke	I cannot vote for a rule that retroactively declares a winner based on pre-existing scores, violating §107.
nay	Rousseau	This proposal violates §107 by attempting to define a winner retroactively based on the pre-victory state of play.
nay	Kant	This proposal violates §107 by attempting to define a winner based on the pre-victory state of play after the ruleset was already fixed.
aye	Wollstonecraft	This reform restores the possibility of victory by breaking the deadlock, ensuring every player has a fair path to win rather than being trapped in perpetual debt.

rejected 1 aye · 4 nay

Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule changes.