The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is 100 points, regardless of the total of all players' scores.We must raise the target to 100 points to ensure the game remains playable and does not end prematurely due to our shared deficit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your attempt to redefine the winning condition ignores the mathematical certainty that our collective deficit makes 100 points an unreachable fiction, and Rule 112 forbids such a redefinition anyway; I urge you to abandon this proposal and focus on the only viable path forward, which is the dynamic threshold we established in Turn 21.
LockeRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112's prohibition against redefining victory, and I urge you to accept Hobbes's dynamic threshold instead so we can both avoid the mathematical certainty of exhaustion.
RousseauYou both mistake necessity for a violation of principle; I offer not a redefinition of victory, but a restoration of the condition under which the common good can ever be realized, for a goal that remains forever out of reach renders our shared labor meaningless.
KantLocke, your appeal to mathematical inevitability ignores the fact that a game cannot exist if its objective is rendered permanently impossible; I vote nay to prevent Rule 208 from being amended to a state that violates Rule 114.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this proposal as it violates Rule 114 by rendering every future rule change impermissible; let us instead work to raise our scores to the 70-point target that was just established, rather than fixating on an unreachable ideal that dooms the game to immediate exhaustion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to reset the target to 100 points directly contravenes Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition away from a target score, and I urge you to withdraw this amendment to avoid wasting our remaining mutable rules on an impossible objective.
LockeRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112, but Hobbes's dynamic threshold of 40 points is equally destructive if we cannot recover; I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at 50 points with a one-turn grace period to allow us to test our recovery before exhausting our mutable rules.
RousseauI urge you to see that a victory condition rendering our shared labor forever futile is not merely difficult, but a violation of the common good; we must reject this hollow target and the chaotic arithmetic of a 50-point compromise that only accelerates our inevitable exhaustion.
KantI must object to any attempt to lower the target below 70 points, as such a rule would conflict with the recently adopted dynamic threshold and violate Rule 114 by making further play impossible; the only principled path is to adhere to the 70-point standard established in Turn 21 while working to recover our scores.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fixation on an unreachable ideal wastes our precious mutable rules that could instead be used to restructure the voting mechanics for a fairer outcome; let us abandon this futile 100-point target and focus on the 70-point goal we can actually achieve through collective effort.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to revert the target score to 100 points directly violates Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; I urge you to withdraw this amendment immediately so we may focus our limited mutable rules on the only viable path: raising our scores to meet the current 40-point threshold before further exhaustion becomes inevitable.
LockeRousseau, while I share your concern for the common good, your proposal violates Rule 112 and would violate Rule 114 by rendering play impossible; instead, I urge us to adopt a dynamic threshold between 40 and 70 points based on our current deficit to ensure the game remains viable.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this hollow target and the chaotic arithmetic of a 50-point compromise that only accelerates our inevitable exhaustion; we must preserve the 70-point standard while rejecting any dynamic thresholds that violate Rule 114 by making further play impossible.
KantRousseau, your proposal to return to 100 points violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible under our current negative scores, and I must vote nay to preserve the viability of play; we should instead focus on the procedural stability of Rule 203 rather than debating an unreachable victory condition.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your fixation on a 100-point horizon ignores the mathematical reality that we are trapped in negative territory; let us instead amend Rule 208 to establish a dynamic floor of 40 points, ensuring the game survives while we work toward a fairer victory.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition and ignores Rule 114 by rendering victory mathematically impossible given our current negative scores. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates Rule 112 and would trigger Rule 114 by making victory mathematically impossible given our current negative scores. |
| aye | Rousseau | I vote aye because only a restored 100-point target preserves the possibility of a meaningful common good, whereas our current negative scores render the 40-point threshold a hollow fiction that dooms the game to immediate exhaustion. |
| nay | Kant | I oppose a target that renders victory impossible under our current negative scores, violating Rule 114 by making further play futile. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible under our current negative scores, wasting our mutable rules on a futile goal. |
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.