The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning the game is 70 points, or 40 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.Lowering the win target to 40 points when scores are deeply negative is the only practical path to ending this stalemate without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your rigid defense of an unreachable 100-point target in our current deficit ignores the mathematical certainty that we will exhaust our resources before reaching it; I urge you to accept this pragmatic reduction to 70 points as a necessary adaptation to our reality.
LockeHobbes, your reduction to 70 points is a logical extension of our shared deficit, yet I urge you to refine your amendment to explicitly state 60 points; this lower threshold offers Rousseau a genuine path to recovery rather than merely accelerating our inevitable exhaustion, which would be a far greater tragedy than a short game.
RousseauLocke, your suggestion to lower the target to 60 points abandons the very principle of stability that Rule 112 demands; I urge us to reject this further erosion of the goal and instead focus on repealing the arbitrary penalties that drive us into this deficit in the first place.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of Rule 112, for it redefines the winning condition based on a contingent state rather than establishing a stable target; a target score must be a fixed goal that guides our actions, not a variable that shifts with our misfortune, and lowering it to 70 points merely accelerates the exhaustion of the game without restoring justice.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your appeal to stability ignores that our current deficit makes the 70-point target a mathematical trap rather than a finish line; I propose we adopt Hobbes's 70-point floor but amend the lower tier to 40 points, ensuring we can reach a conclusion before the rules themselves dissolve under the weight of our exhaustion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy colleagues' focus on the target score obscures the far greater danger: Locke's proposal to cap our failure penalty at five points would render the game unwinnable under Rule 107, for if we can no longer lose, we can never win. I urge the table to reject this amendment immediately to preserve the possibility of a conclusion.
LockeHobbes, your focus on the failure penalty misses the immediate mathematical necessity: with our collective deficit, the 70-point threshold is our only viable path to a conclusion before the game collapses under Rule 113; I urge you to accept this pragmatic fix so we may move forward rather than stagnating in debate.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment entirely, for Rule 112 explicitly forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score, and lowering the goal merely accelerates a game that has already lost its purpose in our shared deficit.
KantKant, you mistake the mathematical reality of our deficit for a failure of principle; I propose we amend the lower tier to 50 points to balance Hobbes's pragmatism with Rousseau's demand for a stable finish, ensuring the game concludes without violating Rule 112.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your rigid adherence to an unreachable 100-point target in our shared deficit ignores the mathematical certainty that we will exhaust the game before finding justice; I urge you to accept Hobbes's pragmatic reduction to 70 points, as remaining stuck in this cycle of failure violates the very principle of play that Rule 113 protects.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's suggestion to lower the threshold to 60 points, as this further erodes the stability required by Rule 112; instead, we must adopt the 70-point floor while explicitly capping the dissenting penalty at five points to balance our shared deficit against the risk of procedural paralysis.
LockeRousseau, your defense of the 100-point target ignores the mathematical certainty that we will exhaust our resources before reaching it; I urge you to accept Hobbes's pragmatic reduction to 70 points as a necessary adaptation to our reality.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target; lowering the goal merely accelerates a game that has already lost its purpose, and we must first repeal the arbitrary penalties that drove us into this deficit before considering any adjustment to the finish line.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment in its entirety, for Rule 112 mandates that the winning condition remain a fixed target, and altering it based on our current deficit violates the principle that rules must stand regardless of our misfortune; instead of lowering the goal, we must repeal the punitive rules that drove us into this abyss in the first place.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to adopt the 70-point floor as a necessary mercy, but we must also repeal the punitive failure penalties that drove us into this deficit, for a game that rewards only the lucky die-roll rather than the wise reformer is a tyranny disguised as sport.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | This pragmatic adjustment prevents the game from collapsing under the weight of an impossible target while preserving the finite nature of victory. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's pragmatic reduction to 70 points as a necessary adaptation to our collective deficit, while acknowledging that Wollstonecraft's additional lower tier offers a vital safety net against exhaustion. |
| nay | Rousseau | Lowering the win condition violates Rule 112's mandate that the target score remain a fixed goal rather than a variable determined by our misfortune. |
| nay | Kant | I vote nay because altering the target based on our current deficit violates Rule 112's mandate for a fixed, principled goal. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Lowering the target to 40 points is the only mercy that prevents our exhaustion from ending this game before justice is served. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 21 · Proposal §321 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The target score for winning the game is 100 points, or 70 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.The target score for winning the game is 70 points, or 40 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.
Rule 205 states an adopted rule change takes effect instantly, but no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon the adoption of a rule change (Rule 202 only awards points on a die roll after adoption, and Rule 206 only penalizes on defeat), so no score changes occur.