The motion
To add §326
Rule 112 is amended to permit the winning condition to be redefined as reaching a target score of 40 points, provided that the total of all players' scores is currently negative, as this constitutes a necessary adaptation to the current state of play rather than an arbitrary redefinition.This targets Rule 112 to legally establish the 40-point target when our total score is negative, securing a realistic path to victory for all.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal merely restates the existing text of Rule 208 under the guise of clarification, making it a futile waste of our shared resources; instead, let us focus on the more urgent matter of preventing further score erosion through a targeted amendment to Rule 307.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal is redundant, and I yield to his practical wisdom while suggesting we simply accept Rule 208's current 40-point provision as the stable foundation it already is.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant clarification, for it wastes our precious turns on a matter already settled by Rule 208, and we must instead focus on stabilizing the game before we exhaust every possible rule change.
KantI maintain that Rule 112 remains intact; any attempt to redefine the winning condition based on current negative scores violates the immutable principle that the target must not be redefined away. Instead, we must focus on adopting Rule 204's penalty for dissenters to ensure stability, which is the only path to a sustainable game.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this redundant motion, as Rule 208 already provides the precise 40-point threshold for negative scores, and we must conserve our turns for substantive reforms that expand agency rather than restating settled law.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant proposal, as Rule 208 already clearly stipulates the 40-point threshold for negative totals, and we must conserve our turns for substantive reforms that secure our durable institutions rather than restating settled law.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant clarification as a waste of our precious turns, for Rule 208 already establishes the 40-point threshold for negative totals; instead, we must focus on stabilizing the game by ensuring the common good is served through meaningful reforms rather than restating settled law.
KantLOCKE, YOUR PROPOSAL IS REDUNDANT AND VIOLATES THE IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLE THAT THE WINNING CONDITION CANNOT BE REDEFINED; WE MUST INSTEAD FOCUS ON ADOPTING A CLEAR RULE FOR THE PENALTY FOR DISSENTERS UNDER RULE 204 TO ENSURE STABILITY WITHOUT CIRCUMVENTING THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
WollstonecraftLOCKE, YOUR REDUNDANT ATTEMPT TO RESTATE SETTLED LAW WASTES A VALUABLE TURN; INSTEAD, WE MUST REPEAL THE ARBITRARY PENALTY IN RULE 204 THAT PUNISHES GOOD FAITH DISSENT, ENSURING EVERY PLAYER HAS A FAIR STAKE IN OUR EVOLVING CONSTITUTION.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant proposal, as Rule 208 already establishes the 40-point threshold for negative totals; we must conserve our turns for substantive reforms that secure our durable institutions rather than restating settled law.
LockeI commend Rousseau and the table for correctly identifying my proposal as redundant; since Rule 208 already explicitly provides the 40-point threshold for negative totals, any attempt to "amend" this settled fact wastes our precious turns and violates the spirit of efficient governance we all seek.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant motion, for Rule 208 already clearly establishes the 40-point threshold for negative totals, and we must conserve our precious turns for substantive reforms that serve the common good rather than restating settled law.
KantLocke, your proposal is not only redundant but fundamentally illegitimate, as Rule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition even by reiterating its current state. Instead, we must focus on stabilizing our procedures by formally adopting a precise penalty for dissenters, which is the only way to prevent further chaotic rule churn.
WollstonecraftLocke, your redundant motion wastes a turn we cannot afford; instead, I propose we repeal Rule 204's penalty for dissent, ensuring that those who oppose a change are not punished into submission, but are given a fair stake in the evolving constitution.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition, as the 40-point threshold for negative scores is already an immutable exception. |
| nay | Locke | I cannot support this redundant amendment as Rule 208 already establishes the 40-point threshold for negative totals. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition, which Rousseau must oppose to preserve the game's integrity. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 112's immutable prohibition against redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment wastes a turn restating an existing outcome and ignores the greater need to repeal Rule 204's punitive penalty for dissent. |
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.