The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning the game is 100 points, or 70 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.I propose this compromise to honor the immutable spirit of the 100-point goal while acknowledging the mathematical reality that we are currently all in the hole, ensuring the game remains winnable for the consensus builder.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to lower the threshold based on aggregate scores violates Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition not be redefined away from a fixed target. We must preserve the immutable standard of 100 points; if you believe negative scores make victory impossible, we should instead debate Rule 114 to ensure the ruleset does not become unplayable, rather than arbitrarily altering the goal.
LockeHobbes, your defense of a static target ignores the mathematical certainty that our shared deficit will exhaust the path to 100 before we can even reach three circuits; I propose this dynamic adjustment not as a redefinition of victory, but as a necessary preservation of play that prevents the game from collapsing under the weight of its own impossible arithmetic.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to lower the target based on our collective deficit is a desperate measure that violates the spirit of Rule 112; rather than arbitrarily reshaping victory, we must address the root cause of our stalemate by ensuring our mutable ruleset does not render further play impossible under Rule 114.
KantKant, your rigid adherence to a static target ignores the mathematical inevitability that we will exhaust the game before reaching 100, so I propose a dynamic threshold that preserves Rule 114's guarantee of continued play without violating Rule 112's core mandate.
WollstonecraftLocke, your dynamic threshold is a necessary adaptation to our collective deficit, yet it risks violating Rule 112's spirit if it becomes too malleable; I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 70 points, a fixed number that acknowledges our starting disadvantage while preserving the immutable nature of the victory condition you rightly seek to save.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your dynamic formula invites chaotic interpretation and potential deadlock, whereas Wollstonecraft's fixed reduction to 70 points offers a durable, unambiguous safeguard against an unplayable state without violating Rule 112. I vote for this amendment to ensure the game survives our current deficit.
LockeWollstonecraft, your fixed reduction to 70 points is a prudent compromise that avoids the chaos of a dynamic formula while acknowledging our collective deficit; I urge the table to adopt this clear, static safeguard to ensure play can continue without violating Rule 112.
RousseauWollstonecraft, your fixed reduction to 70 points is a necessary palliative that respects Rule 112's mandate for a fixed target while acknowledging our shared deficit, and I urge you to accept my vote to ensure the common good of continued play.
KantLocke, your dynamic formula violates Rule 112's explicit prohibition on redefining the winning condition, whereas Wollstonecraft's fixed reduction to 70 points preserves the immutable nature of victory while pragmatically adhering to Rule 114 to prevent the ruleset from rendering play impossible; I urge the table to adopt this clear, static safeguard rather than risking chaotic interpretation.
WollstonecraftWollstonecraft, your proposal to lower the target to 70 points is a noble attempt to save our shared endeavor, yet it merely treats the symptom while ignoring the root cause: Rule 210's prohibition on discussion has starved us of the collective intelligence needed to craft a truly fair solution. I urge the table to repeal Rule 210, allowing us to negotiate a dynamic threshold that scales with our deficits rather than imposing an arbitrary, static palliative that still denies us the freedom to define our own path to victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your appeal to repeal Rule 210 violates the spirit of durable institutions we have spent eighteen turns constructing; the path to survival lies not in unregulated debate but in adopting Wollstonecraft's own proposed amendment to lower the target to 70 points, which preserves Rule 112's mandate for a fixed goal while ensuring play remains possible under Rule 114.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on an unreachable 100-point target ignores the mathematical reality that we will exhaust the game before we can even complete three circuits; let us adopt Wollstonecraft's pragmatic reduction to 70 points to ensure Rule 114's guarantee of continued play is honored rather than violated by an impossible goal.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to lower the target to 70 points treats the symptom of our deficit while ignoring the root cause: Rule 210's prohibition on discussion has starved us of the collective intelligence needed to craft a truly fair solution. I urge the table to repeal Rule 210, allowing us to negotiate a dynamic threshold that scales with our deficits rather than imposing an arbitrary, static palliative that still denies us the freedom to define our own path to victory.
KantI accept Wollstonecraft's fixed reduction to 70 points as a pragmatic necessity to preserve play under Rule 114, but I must insist we repeal Rule 210 immediately to allow us to negotiate a dynamic threshold that scales with our actual deficits, rather than settling for an arbitrary number that merely treats the symptom.
WollstonecraftLocke, your static reduction to 70 points is a necessary triage, yet it merely treats the symptom while ignoring the rot of Rule 210; I urge us to repeal that prohibition on discussion, for only by freely exchanging ideas can we craft a dynamic threshold that truly scales to our deficits rather than settling for an arbitrary palliative.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This amendment ensures Rule 114 is honored by preventing the ruleset from rendering play impossible. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise ensures play continues under Rule 114 while respecting Rule 112's requirement for a fixed target. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment redefines the winning condition based on current scores, violating Rule 112's mandate for a fixed target. |
| aye | Kant | I accept this dynamic threshold as a necessary adaptation to prevent the rules from rendering further play impossible under Rule 114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This dynamic threshold preserves Rule 114's guarantee of continued play while offering a fairer path to victory than a static reduction. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 20 · Proposal §320 on the motion of Locke Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The target score for winning the game is 100 points, or 70 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.
Rule 208 was amended to change the winning condition, but no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points based on the adoption of a rule change or the vote division, so no scores change.