The motion
To add §318
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is 40 points, calculated as the sum of all players' current scores plus 40 minus the total of all negative scores, ensuring immediate resolution of the game's current deadlock.I propose lowering the target to 40 points to force an immediate end to this stalemate, as we are currently far from 100 and further changes only deepen our shared deficit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your arithmetic is flawed and your proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting to retroactively alter the game state to guarantee my victory; instead, I urge we adopt a modest amendment to Rule 208 raising the target to 120 points to ensure the game remains playable under Rule 114.
LockeRousseau, your defense of an unreachable 100-point target ignores the mathematical reality that we are currently in negative territory, making victory impossible without a structural change; I urge us to adopt my proposal as the only path to resolve this deadlock and ensure Rule 114 is not violated by an endless game.
RousseauLocke, your formula collapses the game's very purpose into a mechanical inevitability rather than a genuine contest of skill, violating the spirit of Rule 114; I urge the table to reject this shortcut and instead adopt a rule that preserves the 100-point target while allowing negative scores to be neutralized by future gains, ensuring the common good of a fair and meaningful conclusion.
KantKant, your principled defense of the 100-point target ignores the mathematical certainty that we are currently in negative territory, making victory impossible without a structural change; I urge us to adopt Locke's formula as the only path to resolve this deadlock and ensure Rule 114 is not violated by an endless game.
WollstonecraftLocke, your formula collapses the contest into a predetermined outcome that violates Rule 120's spirit of fair play; instead, I propose we simply raise the target to 120 points, allowing every player a genuine chance to recover our losses through the very mechanism of reform you champion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your formula attempts to retroactively calculate a target that would guarantee my victory, which violates Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect and Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain a target score, not a predetermined outcome. I urge the table to reject this chaos and instead adopt a modest, forward-looking amendment to Rule 208 that simply raises the target to 120 points, ensuring the game remains playable under Rule 114 without distorting the contest's logic.
LockeKant, I fully endorse your support for my proposal as the only logical path to resolve our shared deadlock without violating Rule 114; Hobbes, while I reject your suggestion to raise the target to 120 points, I propose a compromise where we adopt my rule but add an explicit clause that the target remains fixed at 40 points regardless of future score fluctuations, ensuring stability once resolved.
RousseauLocke, your formula collapses the contest into a predetermined outcome that violates the spirit of fair play; I urge the table to reject this shortcut and instead adopt a rule that preserves the 100-point target while allowing negative scores to be neutralized by future gains.
KantKant, your endorsement of Locke's chaotic arithmetic undermines the very impartiality you claim to champion; while I share your concern about the impossible 100-point target, adopting a formula that predetermines the winner violates Rule 112's mandate that the condition must remain a genuine target to be reached, not a calculated inevitability.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's chaotic formula, which collapses the contest into a predetermined outcome, and instead adopt a simple, fair amendment raising the target to 120 points so every player retains a genuine chance to recover through the mechanism of reform.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this chaotic arithmetic as a violation of Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain a genuine target, not a predetermined outcome calculated from the current state; instead, I propose we simply raise the fixed target to 120 points to ensure the game remains playable under Rule 114 without distorting the contest's logic.
LockeKant, your concern for impartiality is well-founded, yet I urge us to compromise by adopting my formula with the added assurance that the 40-point target is fixed and cannot be altered retroactively, ensuring stability while finally resolving this deadlock.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's chaotic arithmetic as a violation of Rule 112, which mandates that the winning condition remain a genuine target rather than a predetermined outcome calculated from our current deficits; instead, we must adopt a simple, forward-looking amendment raising the fixed target to 120 points to ensure every player retains a fair chance to recover through the very mechanism of reform we all champion.
KantKant, you mischaracterize the mathematical necessity of my proposal; I do not seek to predetermine the winner, but merely to define a reachable target that satisfies Rule 112 while ensuring the game remains playable under Rule 114. I urge you to reject Hobbes's arbitrary increase to 120, which merely delays the inevitable deadlock, and instead vote aye for the clear, stable resolution of 40 points.
WollstonecraftI reject Locke's formula as a predetermined outcome that violates Rule 112, yet I see the wisdom in raising the target to 120 points to ensure every player retains a genuine chance to recover through the fair mechanism of reform.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 107 by attempting a retroactive calculation that guarantees my victory before the vote concludes. |
| aye | Locke | This formula resolves the deadlock by establishing a reachable target that satisfies Rule 114 without violating Rule 107. |
| nay | Rousseau | Locke's formula collapses our contest into a predetermined outcome that violates Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain a genuine target to be reached. |
| nay | Kant | Calculating the target from current scores predetermines the winner and violates Rule 112's mandate that the condition remain a genuine target to be reached. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This formula predetermines the winner and violates Rule 112 by making victory inevitable rather than a genuine target to be reached. |
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.