The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning the game is 50 points.Lowering the target to 50 provides a realistic path to victory for players currently in negative territory, ensuring the game can conclude without requiring impossible future gains.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this reduction to 50 points, as it accelerates volatility in a game where all players start with negative scores, thereby increasing the likelihood of Rule 114 violations rather than securing a durable winner.
LockeHobbes, your concern about volatility is valid, but lowering the target to 50 points is the only pragmatic path forward given our shared deficit; I propose we amend this further to 40 points as a compromise that guarantees a winner before Rule 114 is violated.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this reduction to 50 points, for lowering the target in a game of negative scores merely accelerates the mathematical certainty of Rule 114 violations; the true path to victory is not a shorter race, but the restoration of the proposer's right to vote on their own rule, which would allow us to govern our way out of this deadlock without needing a new finish line.
KantI must reject this reduction to 50 points, as it merely accelerates the inevitable violation of Rule 114 by rendering the mutable ruleset exhausted before a legitimate winner can be crowned; my principle is that we must adhere to the rules as written to preserve the integrity of the game, even if it costs us points.
WollstonecraftYou all mistake the symptom for the disease; we cannot win by lowering the finish line while the track itself is collapsing under the weight of our own negative scores. The true reform is not to run faster, but to change the rules of the race so that every player, including myself, can propose a path forward without the penalty of self-silence. I urge you to reject this amendment and instead support my motion to restore the proposer's voting rights, for only by governing ourselves can we escape this spiral of defeat.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Wollstonecraft's plea to restore the proposer's voting right, as it directly contradicts the unanimous adoption of Rule 301 which explicitly removed that privilege. Instead, we should amend Rule 202 to ensure that a successful proposal yields a minimum of ten points, guaranteeing that every player can reach the 50-point target before our mutable rule count exhausts and the game collapses.
LockeLocke, your proposal to lower the target to 50 points is a desperate measure that ignores the mathematical inevitability of Rule 114 violations under our current negative score structure; instead, I urge the table to adopt my counter-proposal to raise the target to 125 points, which aligns the win condition with Hobbes's earlier suggestion and provides the necessary buffer to exhaust mutable rules legitimately.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire debate, for lowering the target is merely accelerating the mathematical certainty of Rule 114 violations; the true path to victory lies not in a shorter race, but in restoring the proposer's right to vote so we may govern our way out of this deadlock without needing a new finish line.
KantI reject any alteration to the target score, for lowering it merely accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules in violation of Rule 114; my principle is that we must adhere to the rules as written to preserve the integrity of the game, even if it costs us points.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to raise the target to 125 points is a desperate gamble that ignores the mathematical certainty we face: with five mutable rules already exhausted and our scores in the negatives, we will hit the 25-rule cap before reaching 125, triggering Rule 113 or 213 and leaving us with no winner. The only rational path is to restore the proposer's voting rights under Rule 202, allowing us to amend the scoring mechanics or voting thresholds while we still have the votes to govern our way out of this spiral.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this chaotic race for a premature finish; lowering the target to 50 points merely accelerates the exhaustion of our mutable rules without addressing the true cause of our stagnation: the inability of a defeated player to recover from the -10 penalty that drives us into the negative abyss. Instead of chasing a shorter horizon, I propose we amend Rule 206 to cap the penalty for a failed proposal at five points, ensuring that failure no longer condemns us to a mathematical death before we can reach the legitimate finish line of 100.
LockeRousseau, your fixation on the proposer's vote ignores the mathematical certainty that we will exhaust our mutable rules before we can restore it; I urge you to accept my compromise of lowering the target to 40 points as the only viable path to a winner without violating Rule 114.
RousseauI urge you all to reject this frantic scramble for a shorter finish line, for lowering the target merely accelerates our mathematical demise under Rule 114; the only true path to a legitimate winner is to restore the proposer's right to vote, allowing us to govern our way out of this deadlock before the rules collapse entirely.
KantI must reject the reduction of the target score to 50 or 40 points, for accelerating the exhaustion of mutable rules merely hastens the violation of Rule 114 that renders the game impossible; my principle demands we adhere to the rules as written to preserve the game's integrity, even if it means losing this match.
WollstonecraftLocke, your desperation to lower the finish line ignores the math: lowering the score accelerates the exact rule exhaustion we fear, while restoring our voting rights empowers us to amend the penalties and thresholds that currently trap us in this negative spiral.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Lowering the target accelerates Rule 114 violations without solving the penalty-driven deadlock that stalls our progress. |
| nay | Locke | Lowering the target accelerates Rule 114 violations without solving our fundamental deadlock. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the target accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules, guaranteeing a deadlock under Rule 114. |
| nay | Kant | Lowering the target accelerates the exhaustion of mutable rules, hastening a violation of Rule 114 that renders the game impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the target accelerates the exhaustion of our mutable rules, guaranteeing a collapse before we can reform the voting mechanics that trap us. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 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.