The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is 100 points, except that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the target score is 100 points plus the absolute value of the total of all players' scores, ensuring that victory remains a distant horizon that requires the collective restoration of the common good rather than a premature exit from the game.This amendment restores the mathematical possibility of a shared victory by making the goal dependent on our collective recovery, preventing the game from ending in inevitable exhaustion at 40 points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal directly violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target, and it further contravenes Rule 107 by attempting to impose a retroactive calculation on a current state; we must reject this attempt to destabilize our institutions in favor of a clear, attainable victory.
LockeRousseau, your attempt to redefine the winning condition violates Rule 112's mandate against redefinition, but I offer a compromise: let us cap the target at 40 points if scores are negative to ensure a definitive end, preserving the game's integrity while honoring your desire for stability.
RousseauLocke, your compromise to cap the target at 40 points merely accelerates the inevitable exhaustion of play that Rule 113 warns against, failing to address the root cause of our stalemate; instead, we must adopt my proposal to raise the target dynamically, ensuring that victory remains a distant horizon requiring the collective restoration of the common good rather than a premature exit.
KantI must vote nay, as Rousseau's proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target, and Rule 107 by attempting to impose a retroactive calculation on the current state; I oppose destabilizing our institutions in favor of a clear, attainable victory.
WollstonecraftI urge you all to reject this chaotic arithmetic and the dangerous proposal to freeze the target at 100 points; instead, let us adopt a rule that explicitly exempts the target score from the ban on redefinition in Rule 112, allowing us to lower the goal to 30 points—a fixed, attainable horizon that guarantees an end to this infinite stalemate without violating the spirit of our institutions.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition into a moving target based on current scores, which creates the exact instability and potential for infinite stalemate that Rule 113 seeks to prevent.
LockeRousseau, your dynamic formula violates Rule 112 by redefining victory, but Wollstonecraft's idea to exempt the target score from that ban is a brilliant compromise; let us adopt her proposal to lower the fixed target to 30 points, ensuring an attainable end while respecting the immutable constraints of our institutions.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's attempt to carve an exception for the target score, for Rule 112 stands as the guardian of our game's integrity; instead, we must find a way to restore positive scores so that the existing 40-point threshold becomes attainable without violating the immutable law.
KantI maintain that Rule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition, and Rousseau's dynamic formula violates this by making victory contingent on an unstable sum; I will vote nay to preserve the game's integrity, even if it prolongs our current stalemate, for I must accept no rule I could not accept were I the one being judged.
WollstonecraftI propose a new rule: "Rule 112 is amended to allow a player to add 20 points to the total score of all players if they successfully repeal the current winning condition, ensuring that reformers who seek to end the game's stagnation are rewarded rather than punished for their efforts."
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your proposal to reward the repeal of a winning condition directly contravenes Rule 112's prohibition against redefining victory and Rule 208's mandate for a fixed target; we must instead focus on the modest, attainable goal of 40 points to restore order rather than crafting new mechanisms that further destabilize our institutions.
LockeWollstonecraft, your attempt to create an exception for Rule 112 is as dangerous as Rousseau's dynamic formula; instead, let us adopt my previous compromise to cap the target at 40 points for negative scores, which provides a definitive and mathematically sound endpoint without violating our immutable principles.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's attempt to carve an exception for Rule 112, for she seeks only to accelerate our exhaustion by lowering the target to an arbitrary 30 points; instead, we must restore positive scores so that the existing 40-point threshold becomes attainable without violating the immutable law.
KantWollstonecraft, your attempt to amend Rule 112 to create an exception for itself violates Rule 103, which defines a rule change as enacting, repealing, amending, or transmuting, and Rule 156, which forbids a rule from creating exceptions to its own prohibitions; I vote nay to preserve the logical coherence of our institutions.
WollstonecraftLet us reject this endless arithmetic of defeat; I propose a simple amendment to Rule 208 establishing a fixed target of 30 points, a clear horizon that guarantees an end to our stalemate without violating the immutable spirit of Rule 112.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This dynamic formula violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition into an unstable moving target. |
| nay | Locke | This dynamic formula violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition into an unstable moving target rather than a fixed goal. |
| nay | Rousseau | This dynamic target violates Rule 112 by redefining the fixed winning condition. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition into an unstable variable that could never be reached. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rousseau's dynamic formula violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition into an impossible moving target. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 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.