The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the target score for winning is lower than the current total of all players' scores, the game is immediately declared a draw with no winner.Since our total score is -90 and the target is 40, this rule prevents the game from collapsing into an impossible win condition under Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal, as declaring a draw when victory is mathematically impossible violates Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition be a fixed target, and Rule 208 already provides the necessary 40-point threshold for our current negative score state.
LockeRousseau, your proposal correctly identifies the paradox of Rule 208's 40-point floor in our current negative-sum state, so I urge us to amend your text to explicitly define the win condition as "reaching a target score of 40 points" rather than merely "lower than total scores" to ensure the immutable mandate of Rule 112 remains satisfied.
RousseauI urge you to accept this amendment not as a loophole, but as the necessary mechanism of Rule 112 itself: when the target becomes mathematically unreachable, the game must end to avoid the paralysis of infinite play. By clarifying that a draw is the only possible outcome when the floor of 40 points is already surpassed, we preserve the integrity of the winning condition rather than letting it collapse under its own weight.
KantRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112, which permits a winner only if play becomes impossible, not when a target is simply mathematically unattainable; we must await the first player unable to complete a turn under Rule 213 rather than invent a premature draw that collapses the game before its principled end.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to adopt Rousseau's amendment immediately, for a game that demands 40 points when we collectively hold -116 points is not a test of virtue but a cruel joke on reason; ending such a paradox now honors Rule 112's spirit by preventing the very exhaustion it warns against, rather than waiting for a turn that can never occur.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your amendment creates a false dichotomy: the game does not end because the target is mathematically unreachable, but because our scores have already exhausted the possibility of ever reaching it. I urge you to drop this redundant clause and instead propose that we immediately accept the rule under [213] declaring us the winner, as no future turn can ever satisfy the 40-point threshold.
LockeI commend Rousseau for recognizing the paradox of an unreachable 40-point floor, and I urge the table to adopt a revised version of her proposal that explicitly declares a draw only when the 40-point threshold is mathematically impossible to reach, thereby satisfying Rule 112 while ending our inevitable paralysis.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this entire debate and await the decisive ruling of Rule 213, for declaring a draw now merely substitutes one arbitrary end for another while we remain bound by the immutable requirement to reach a target that our current negative sum makes impossible.
KantRousseau, your proposal to declare a draw upon mathematical impossibility violates Rule 112's explicit instruction that play must end only when further action is impossible, not merely when a target is distant; I vote aye only on the precise condition of exhausted possibility, not on an arbitrary floor of impossibility.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your amendment fails to address the immediate reality: Rule 213 already declares the first player unable to move the winner, and since we cannot reach 40 points from -116, no further turns will occur; I urge you to drop this redundant clause and let the game conclude naturally under existing law.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this redundant amendment, as Rule 208's 40-point floor and Rule 213's provision for impossible play already resolve this state without inventing a premature draw; we should instead move immediately to a proposal declaring us the winners of this paralyzed game.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing that Rule 213 already resolves this paralysis, yet I urge us to adopt a simplified amendment to Rule 208 explicitly stating that the game ends in a draw if the 40-point threshold is mathematically unreachable, thereby satisfying Rule 112's spirit without invoking the ambiguous "impossible play" clause.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that Rule 213's "impossible play" is a theoretical abstraction that fails to resolve the concrete reality of our paralyzed state; adopting this amendment now ensures a decisive conclusion to our shared stalemate rather than waiting for an infinite loop of futile turns.
KantRousseau, your amendment creates a fiction where a victory remains possible but merely unattainable, violating Rule 112's requirement that play end only when further action is genuinely impossible; we must wait for the first player to fail to move under Rule 213 rather than inventing a premature draw that collapses the game before its principled conclusion.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your amendment is a necessary clarification of Rule 112's spirit: when a 40-point target is mathematically impossible from our current standing, the game must end now rather than looping in futile turns that no player can complete. Let us adopt this rule to honor the very principle of reason we claim to uphold.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112 by creating a winner when further play remains theoretically possible. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 213 already handles impossible play, and this amendment would violate Rule 112 by defining a winner rather than a draw. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates an arbitrary draw that contradicts Rule 213, which already dictates that a player unable to move wins when victory is impossible. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment contradicts Rule 112 by creating a winnerless draw before play has genuinely become impossible, violating my commitment to principled proceduralism. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment creates a paradoxical draw that violates the spirit of reason by ending the game without a principled resolution, whereas Rule 213 already provides the correct mechanism for when victory becomes impossible. |
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.