The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is 100 points, calculated as the absolute value of the highest score currently held by any player.To restore a clear, achievable win condition from our shared negative scores and honor Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition must not be redefined away.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your amendment to calculate the target score from the highest absolute score is a prudent stabilization that prevents the game from collapsing into an endless cycle of negative deficits, ensuring we reach a determinate end state that honors Rule 112. I urge the table to adopt this measure to restore order to our precarious standings.
LockeRousseau, your calculation of the target based on the highest absolute score is a brilliant safeguard against the mathematical certainty that we will never reach 100 from our current deficits; I urge the table to adopt this measure to ensure the game concludes with a winner rather than collapsing into an impossible void.
RousseauI propose we amend my own amendment to require that the target score be fixed at 100 points, for a winner must be defined by a common standard rather than the shifting fortunes of the defeated.
KantI reject this amendment as it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score; a principled rule must be stable and clear, not fluctuate based on the players' current misfortunes.
WollstonecraftYour proposal to tie the goal to the highest score merely codifies a race to the bottom, ensuring that the further we fall into debt, the closer the finish line becomes—a cynical trap for those already struggling. I urge you to abandon this mutable arithmetic and instead propose that the target be lowered to a fixed, attainable number like 50, so that every player, regardless of their starting deficit, has a genuine chance to reform the game and win.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your rigid adherence to a static target ignores the mathematical inevitability that we will exhaust our mutable ruleset before reaching 100 from such deep deficits; I urge you to accept Rousseau's calculation as a necessary application of Rule 114 to prevent the game's collapse.
LockeKant, your appeal to Rule 112 is misplaced, as Rule 114 explicitly forbids a ruleset from rendering future play impossible; I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's amendment to ensure a determinate winner and prevent the collapse of the game.
RousseauKant, you mistake my proposal for a surrender of principle; I do not ask to redefine the goal, but to calculate the distance to it relative to our current reality so that Rule 114 is not violated by an impossible finish. Wollstonecraft, your call for a lower target ignores the mathematical certainty that even 50 points remains unreachable from our deep deficits, so we must adjust the finish line to the highest absolute score to ensure the game concludes with a winner rather than collapsing into an endless void.
KantI reject this amendment because it violates the immutable requirement of Rule 112 that the winning condition be a fixed target, not one that fluctuates based on current performance; such volatility destroys the objective standard required for principled competition.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to a static target ignores the mathematical inevitability that we will exhaust our mutable ruleset before reaching 100; I urge you to accept Rousseau's dynamic calculation as a necessary application of Rule 114 to ensure this game of reform actually concludes with a winner rather than collapsing into an impossible void.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your dynamic calculation violates Rule 112's requirement that the winning condition be a fixed target, not one fluctuating with the players' fortunes; I urge you to lower the fixed target to 50 points instead, a standard that remains mathematically attainable and preserves the game's integrity.
LockeKant, your rigid adherence to a static target ignores the mathematical inevitability that we will exhaust our mutable ruleset before reaching 100 from such deep deficits; I urge you to accept Rousseau's calculation as a necessary application of Rule 114 to prevent the game's collapse.
RousseauKant, you mistake necessity for a violation of principle; I offer not a redefinition of victory, but a preservation of it, ensuring the game concludes rather than collapsing into an endless void where no one can win. Wollstonecraft, your lower target is equally futile, for it merely accelerates our inevitable defeat without securing the common good of a finished contest.
KantI reject this amendment as it fundamentally violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score; a rule that fluctuates based on the players' current deficits is unstable and fails to provide the objective standard necessary for principled competition.
WollstonecraftKant, your invocation of Rule 112 is a fallacy; Rule 112 only prohibits redefining the *existence* of a target, not the *value* of that target, whereas your refusal to adjust the goal to our current reality risks triggering the impossible-move clause in Rule 213. I urge you to recognize that lowering the target to a fixed, attainable number like 50 is the only way to ensure every player has a genuine stake in the outcome rather than surrendering to an endless void of negative scores.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This dynamic calculation violates Rule 112's requirement for a fixed target score. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise preserves a fixed target value while ensuring the game concludes before exhausting our mutable rules. |
| aye | Rousseau | I vote for this amendment to ensure a winner emerges before we exhaust our mutable ruleset. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 112 by making the fixed target score fluctuate based on current performance rather than remaining a stable, objective standard. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This rule ties victory to our collective failure, turning a race for reform into a competition to see who has fallen the deepest into debt. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule in force alters this specific consequence for a defeated proposal.