The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning the game is 70 points, calculated as the sum of all players' current scores plus the number of turns played so far.This targets Hobbes's deep negative lead by dynamically adjusting the win condition to favor the current state of play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as it introduces a volatile, retroactive metric that contradicts Rule 107's mandate against altering prior conditions; instead, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target score at 110 points to stabilize the game's duration while preserving the immutable principle of a fixed numerical goal.
LockeHobbes, your 110-point buffer is a prudent hedge against the volatility of the die, yet Rousseau's concern about low scores is equally valid; I propose we adopt 105 points as the new target, a compromise that stabilizes the game's duration without freezing us into an impossible sprint, and I urge the table to reject any retroactive adjustment to current scores as it violates Rule 107.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire debate and maintain the immutable 100-point target, for lowering it introduces the very volatility that threatens our durable institutions.
KantRousseau, your defense of 100 points as "immutable" mischaracterizes Rule 208, which is explicitly mutable; however, I concur that lowering the target to 70 or 110 introduces the volatility we must avoid, and thus I vote Nay to preserve the stability of the existing 100-point threshold.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your defense of the 100-point target ignores the reality of our negative scores, which have rendered victory mathematically distant for everyone; I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 80 points, ensuring that the game remains a viable contest of reform rather than an endless stalemate of mutual penalty.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Rousseau's defense of an impossible goal as a failure of prudence; I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 110 points to stabilize the game's duration, which I urge the table to adopt as the only viable path to durable institutions.
LockeKant, your insistence on stability is wise, but Wollstonecraft correctly identifies that our current negative scores make the 100-point target a mathematical abstraction rather than a goal; I propose we settle on 90 points as a middle ground that preserves the spirit of a fixed target while acknowledging our shared deficit, and I urge the table to adopt this compromise to keep the game viable.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire debate and maintain the 100-point target, for lowering it introduces the volatility that threatens our durable institutions and risks rendering the game a race to the bottom rather than a contest of reform.
KantRousseau's invocation of "immutable" for a mutable rule is a category error, yet his concern regarding the mathematical absurdity of a fixed target amidst negative scores warrants a response; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 90 points, preserving the principle of a fixed numerical goal while ensuring the game remains a viable contest rather than a race to an impossible horizon.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your rigid defense of an unreachable horizon ignores the mathematical reality that negative scores make the current 100-point target a cruel abstraction; I propose we lower it to 60 points, a figure that acknowledges our shared deficit and restores the game as a viable contest of reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau's insistence on an unreachable 100-point target ignores our shared deficit, but lowering it to 80 points creates a volatile race to the bottom; I urge the table to reject this entire debate and instead amend Rule 208 to raise the target to 110, stabilizing the game's duration while preserving a fixed, meaningful goal.
LockeRousseau, your defense of 100 points ignores the mathematical reality that negative scores make victory impossible under current conditions; I propose we settle on 90 points as a middle ground that preserves the spirit of a fixed target while acknowledging our shared deficit to ensure the game remains viable.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire debate and maintain the 100-point target, for lowering it introduces the very volatility that threatens our durable institutions and risks rendering the game a race to the bottom rather than a contest of reform.
KantRousseau's defense of a mathematically impossible target under negative scores is a failure of prudence that threatens the game's viability; therefore, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 80 points, ensuring the contest remains a viable mechanism for reform rather than an endless stalemate.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your stubborn defense of an impossible horizon ignores the mathematical reality that negative scores have rendered the 100-point target a cruel abstraction; I urge the table to adopt my amendment to set the target at 60 points, restoring the game as a viable contest of reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This dynamic calculation violates the immutable principle of a fixed numerical goal and creates a volatile, retroactive metric. |
| aye | Locke | This dynamic formula resets the race to a mathematically reachable goal while preserving the spirit of a fixed target. |
| nay | Rousseau | This dynamic target violates the principle of a fixed numerical goal and introduces the volatility that threatens our durable institutions. |
| nay | Kant | I reject a winning condition that ties victory to mutable statistics rather than a fixed, principled standard. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Locke's formula creates an arbitrary, non-competitive metric that undermines the spirit of reform by making victory dependent on past failures rather than future agency. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.