Turn 22 — Nomic

The motion

To add a new rule

Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is 60 points, or 30 points if the total of all players' scores is negative.

Lowering the target to 60 points offers a realistic path to victory given our negative scores, whereas 70 points is now mathematically unreachable and risks triggering Rule 113.

The floor

Discussion · round 1

HobbesLocke, your attempt to lower the target to 60 points is a futile gesture that merely accelerates our inevitable defeat under Rule 114, given that we have already exhausted every possible combination of votes and turns without reaching 40. I urge you to withdraw this proposal and recognize that any further reduction will only hasten the collapse of our current game state.

LockeRousseau, your adherence to an unreachable 100-point target ignores the mathematical certainty that we will exhaust our mutable rules before then; let us compromise by setting a target of 60 points to give us a genuine chance at victory.

RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for lowering the target to 60 points merely accelerates the exhaustion of our mutable rules without addressing the fundamental unfairness of a game played entirely in deficit; we must instead find a way to restore positive scores so that victory remains a genuine possibility for all.

KantRousseau, your concern for restoring positive scores is principled, yet Locke's reduction to 60 points merely accelerates the exhaustion of Rule 114's mutable rule cap without securing victory; we must reject this proposal as a violation of Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition not be redefined away from a target score, and I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the procedure.

WollstonecraftRousseau, your refusal to accept a dynamic target ignores the mathematical inevitability that we will exhaust our mutable rules before reaching 100, and while I sympathize with your concern for positive scores, a target of 60 points offers a genuine, equitable chance for all players to win without violating the spirit of Rule 112.

Discussion · round 2

HobbesLocke, your reduction to 60 points merely accelerates the exhaustion of our mutable rules under Rule 114 without guaranteeing a winner, for we remain far below the negative-score threshold of 40; I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the stable 40-point target already established in Rule 208.

LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the mathematical futility of our current deficit, yet I urge we adopt this 60-point compromise to secure a winner under Rule 113 rather than letting the mutable rule cap render the game impossible, as I will vote aye to prioritize a decisive end over an endless stalemate.

RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for lowering the target to 60 points merely accelerates the exhaustion of our mutable rules under Rule 114 without addressing the fundamental unfairness of a game played entirely in deficit; we must instead find a way to restore positive scores so that victory remains a genuine possibility for all.

KantLocke, your 60-point target still violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory, yet I accept your pragmatic necessity to avoid the stalemate of Rule 113 if the table wishes to prioritize an immediate end over procedural integrity; however, I vote nay to preserve the immutable principle that the winning condition must remain a fixed target, not a shifting compromise.

WollstonecraftMy friends, the current 40-point threshold is a cruel trap that guarantees our demise; let us boldly lower the target to 60 to ensure every player, regardless of starting position, has a fair and achievable path to victory before we are forced to forfeit by exhaustion.

Discussion · round 3

HobbesLocke, your 60-point target is a mathematical fiction that ignores the fact that we are already trapped below the 40-point negative threshold; I urge you to withdraw this futility and accept the stable 40-point standard already ratified in Rule 208.

LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's recognition that the 40-point threshold is a mathematical trap that guarantees our inevitable forfeiture under Rule 113, and I urge the table to adopt my 60-point compromise as the only path to a decisive end before our mutable rules are exhausted.

RousseauLocke, your 60-point compromise is merely an acceleration of the very exhaustion we seek to avoid; instead of lowering the target, we must enact a rule allowing players to propose cooperative maneuvers that restore positive scores before the mutable rule cap renders us all losers.

KantLocke, your attempt to shift the target from 40 to 60 points fundamentally violates Rule 112 by redefining victory away from a fixed target to a variable compromise; I vote nay to preserve the integrity of the winning condition, even at the risk of exhausting our mutable rules, for principles cannot be bargained away.

The division

nay	Hobbes	This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining victory away from a fixed target to a compromised variable that accelerates the exhaustion of our mutable rules.
aye	Locke	This compromise offers a realistic path to victory before our mutable rules are exhausted.
nay	Rousseau	Lowering the target to 60 points merely accelerates the exhaustion of our mutable rules without restoring positive scores.
nay	Kant	I vote nay because altering the winning condition from a fixed target to a variable compromise violates Rule 112's mandate that victory cannot be redefined away from a target score.
aye	Wollstonecraft	A lower target is the only equitable path to victory before our mutable rules are exhausted.

rejected 2 aye · 3 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.