The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is 60 points, calculated as the sum of the absolute values of all players' scores divided by the number of players, rounded up.This dynamic target ensures a stable finish line that adapts to our collective deficit, preventing the exhaustion trap while rewarding consensus on a fair victory condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposed dynamic calculation violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score, and it ignores the mathematical certainty that we are already trapped in an impossible deficit where no score can ever satisfy your formula.
LockeRousseau, your defense of the 100-point target ignores the mathematical reality that we are already trapped in an impossible deficit where no fixed number can ever be reached; I offer this flexible formula not to redefine victory, but to create a dynamic finish line that acknowledges our current state while preserving the spirit of Rule 112 by remaining mathematically consistent with our actual scores.
RousseauI urge you all to reject this chaotic arithmetic as a violation of Rule 112, which mandates that the winning condition be a fixed target score, not a moving one that accelerates our inevitable exhaustion.
KantI must object to this proposal as a violation of Rule 112, which mandates a fixed target score, not a dynamic formula that shifts the goalposts mid-game; such a rule is void to the extent that it redefines victory rather than regulating the path to a stated endpoint.
WollstonecraftLocke, your formula is a mathematical fiction that ignores Rule 208's explicit mandate for a single target score; instead of chasing a moving goalpost, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the winning target at 35 points, a fixed number that is immediately reachable for every player, including yourself.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score; we must instead adopt a static number that does not guarantee immediate exhaustion under Rule 213.
LockeKant, your rigid adherence to a static number ignores the mathematical inevitability that we will exhaust the game under the current 70-point target, so I offer this flexible formula not as a redefinition of victory, but as a necessary adaptation to preserve play and the common good.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's dynamic formula as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score, and instead adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal for a static 35-point threshold that allows us to escape this impossible deficit without breaking the law.
KantI support Wollstonecraft's proposal for a static 35-point target; while Locke's dynamic formula preserves the spirit of adaptability, it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition, and a fixed number ensures the rules remain a stable framework rather than a moving target.
WollstonecraftLocke, your dynamic formula is a seductive but dangerous fiction that violates Rule 112 by making victory a moving target; I urge you to embrace Wollstonecraft's proposal for a static 35-point threshold, which secures our immediate escape from this impossible deficit while respecting the immutable dignity of fixed laws.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your static 35-point threshold is a prudent immediate escape, yet it violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible under Rule 104; I urge the table to reject it and instead adopt Locke's dynamic formula as a necessary adaptation that preserves Rule 112's mandate for a target score while preventing the total exhaustion of play.
LockeWollstonecraft, your static 35-point threshold is a noble escape, yet Hobbes correctly warns it risks violating Rule 114 by freezing the ruleset; I urge us to compromise on my dynamic formula, which honors Rule 112's demand for a fixed target in every instance while mathematically guaranteeing an exit from our current deficit without collapsing future play.
RousseauI urge the table to reject both Locke's moving target and Wollstonecraft's static threshold as violations of Rule 112; instead, we must adopt a fixed score of 80 points that respects the immutable nature of victory while offering a genuine path to escape our current deficit.
KantI support Wollstonecraft's static 35-point target as the only procedure that respects Rule 112's mandate for a fixed endpoint while offering an immediate escape from the impossible deficit that threatens to collapse play under Rule 213.
WollstonecraftLocke, your dynamic formula violates Rule 112 by making the target a moving target rather than a fixed condition, yet I urge you to accept my proposal for a static 35-point threshold: it is immediately reachable for everyone, including your negative score, and secures our escape from the exhaustion trap without breaking the immutable dignity of fixed laws.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This dynamic calculation violates Rule 112 by redefining victory into a moving target rather than a fixed endpoint. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining the target score dynamically rather than as a fixed number, risking rule invalidation. |
| nay | Rousseau | This dynamic formula violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score, and it risks accelerating our inevitable exhaustion under Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant | This dynamic formula violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This formula violates Rule 112 by making the target a moving target rather than a fixed condition, and it risks collapsing the game under Rule 213. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed proposal.