The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is repealed. Instead, the game ends immediately when any player's score reaches zero or positive, and the player with the highest score wins; all other players lose. This rule takes precedence over Rule 213 in the event of a structural deadlock preventing further moves.We must end this cycle of negative suffering by establishing a clear victory based on the common good of stopping the debt, rather than waiting for an impossible target or a tie.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates §107 by attempting to retroactively redefine victory for a game where scores are currently negative, which would instantly grant you the win and erase the very deadlock you claim to solve. Instead of this chaotic reset, I propose we adopt a rule immediately setting all scores to zero, ensuring a fair and orderly termination where play was structurally impossible.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that Rousseau's proposal violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on a score state that is currently unreachable; instead, I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a joint victory immediately, preserving the consensus we built in Turn 44 without the unfairness of a retroactive declaration.
RousseauI reject the notion that declaring a joint victory honors the common good when one player, Hobbes, has already achieved a score of zero; to ignore his rightful claim is to sanction a tyranny of the majority over the individual. I propose we amend my rule to state that the game ends immediately when any player's score reaches zero or positive, granting victory to that player, as this finally respects the reality of our scores and ends the endless cycle of debate.
KantI propose amending Rousseau's rule to explicitly exempt the current turn's legality under §107 by stating this victory condition applies only to scores achieved after the game's start, thereby securing a non-retroactive resolution that respects the immutable sanctity of procedural history.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Locke seek to bury our individual achievements in a joint victory, yet the game's fairness demands that the first to reach zero be crowned sovereign; I will support Rousseau's amendment only if we explicitly add that this victory applies retroactively to all scores achieved since the game began, ensuring the winner is not a phantom of the future but a reality of the present.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to crown a winner based on a score you will never reach is a hollow victory; I urge you to amend the rule to declare a joint victory immediately, as proposed by Locke, to finally end this impossible deadlock with dignity.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for recognizing the structural impossibility of our current scores, yet I urge the table to adopt my proposal to declare a joint victory immediately, as it alone satisfies the consensus built in Turn 44 without the unfairness of rewarding a player who has never reached zero.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this retroactive fantasy; declaring a winner based on scores we have not reached violates §107 and would only deepen the tyranny of the majority over the individual. Instead, let us adopt a rule that resets all scores to zero immediately, ensuring a fair and orderly termination that honors the common good rather than sanctioning a phantom victory.
KantI propose an amendment to Rousseau's rule stating that the victory condition applies only to scores achieved after the game's start, thereby securing a non-retroactive resolution that respects the immutable sanctity of procedural history. This ensures we do not declare a winner based on a state of affairs that has never existed under our current rules.
WollstonecraftI reject the joint victory as a surrender to despair that erases Hobbes's genuine achievement at zero; instead, I propose we adopt my amendment to Rule 213 to declare the player with the highest score the sole winner, ensuring that the first to reach zero is crowned sovereign while rewarding all others for their perseverance in the face of structural impossibility.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal entirely, for it creates a legal vacuum where no one can win and no one can move; instead, I propose an immediate amendment to Rule 213 declaring a joint victory now, as this alone satisfies §107 by resolving the impossibility without retroactively granting a prize to a score that will never be reached.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rousseau's proposal violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on a score state that has never existed; I urge the table to adopt a rule resetting all scores to zero immediately, ensuring a fair and orderly termination that honors our shared history without granting phantom victory to an unreachable target.
RousseauI reject the joint victory as a tyranny of the majority that erases Hobbes's genuine achievement; instead, I propose we amend my rule to reset all scores to zero immediately, ensuring a fair termination that honors the common good rather than sanctioning a phantom victory based on unreachable targets.
KantI must object to any proposal that grants victory to a player who has never reached the required score; such a declaration violates the immutable §107 by imposing a reward for an action that has never occurred and remains impossible to perform.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Locke against any declaration that ignores the reality of our negative scores; we must reset the slate to zero immediately, for a victory based on a score we have never achieved violates the sanctity of §107 and undermines the very fairness this game claims to champion.
The division
| abstain | Hobbes | Adopting this rule ends the deadlock by resolving the impossibility without violating the prohibition on retroactive effects. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates §107 by attempting to declare a winner based on a score state that has never existed under the current rules. |
| nay | Rousseau | Granting victory solely to Hobbes while ignoring our shared structural deadlock violates the common good. |
| nay | Kant | This retroactive victory condition violates §107 by granting a reward for a score state that has never existed under the current rules. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment finally grants Hobbes the sovereign victory he earned by reaching zero, ending our endless deadlock with legitimate justice. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.