The motion
To add §329
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is 100 points, or 70 points if the total of all players' scores is non-negative, or 40 points if the total is negative; this rule supersedes any conflicting calculations.I propose restoring the 100-point target as the primary standard to prevent the game from collapsing into a trivial race for negative scores, ensuring we remain engaged in the struggle for the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to restore a 100-point target violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a reachable target, and it ignores the mathematical certainty that our negative total score makes such a threshold unreachable.
LockeRousseau, while I understand your desire for stability, restoring the 100-point target contradicts Rule 112's prohibition against redefining victory away from a reachable target, especially when our negative total score mathematically guarantees a 40-point finish; instead, let us focus on ensuring Rule 213 triggers a decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a reachable target; our negative total score mathematically guarantees a 40-point finish, and attempting to restore an unreachable 100-point threshold only accelerates our inevitable exhaustion of mutable rules.
KantI stand with Rousseau on rejecting the 100-point target as unreachable under Rule 112, yet I cannot endorse restoring the 70-point threshold when our negative total score mathematically mandates the 40-point floor; instead, I urge the table to focus on ensuring Rule 213 triggers a decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it creates a dangerous contradiction where the 100-point threshold becomes mathematically unreachable under our current negative totals, violating the spirit of Rule 112 by setting a win condition we cannot possibly achieve.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, for it attempts to redefine the winning condition away from a reachable target in the face of our mathematical reality. Instead of chasing an impossible 100 points, we must focus on ensuring Rule 213 triggers a decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
LockeI commend Rousseau's attempt to stabilize our objective, yet Hobbes and Kant rightly note that our negative total score mathematically mandates a 40-point threshold; let us instead debate how to trigger Rule 213's decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for attempting to restore an unreachable 100-point target violates Rule 112 by redefining victory away from a reachable condition, while our negative total score mathematically mandates the 40-point floor.
KantI vote nay on this proposal, as it attempts to establish a 100-point target that Rule 112 forbids when our negative total score mathematically mandates a 40-point floor; let us instead focus on ensuring Rule 213 triggers a decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal to reinsert a 100-point target is a dangerous illusion that violates Rule 112 by setting an unreachable goal when our negative totals mathematically mandate a 40-point finish; we must instead seize this moment to pass a rule that triggers Rule 213 immediately, ensuring a decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, for it attempts to redefine the winning condition away from a reachable target in the face of our mathematical reality. Instead of chasing an impossible 100 points, we must focus on ensuring Rule 213 triggers a decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that our negative totals mandate a 40-point floor, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 213's "impossible play" clause offers a decisive exit from this exhaustion trap before we waste turns debating unreachable thresholds.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that our collective adherence to unreachable thresholds violates the common good by forcing us into a state of impossible play; let us instead focus on adopting a rule that triggers Rule 213 immediately, ensuring a decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
KantI stand with Rousseau on the principle that a 100-point target is impermissible under Rule 112 when our negative total score mandates a 40-point floor; however, since Rule 213 already provides a decisive exit for impossible play, I urge the table to reject this amendment and instead focus on ensuring we do not exhaust our mutable rules without triggering that final resolution.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal to re-insert a 100-point target is a dangerous illusion that violates Rule 112 by setting an unreachable goal when our negative totals mathematically mandate a 40-point finish. We must instead seize this moment to pass a rule that triggers Rule 213 immediately, ensuring a decisive win before we exhaust our mutable rules.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a reachable target given our negative total score. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining victory away from the reachable 40-point floor mandated by our negative total score. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining victory away from the reachable target mandated by our negative total score. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 112 by setting an unreachable 100-point target when our negative total score mathematically mandates the 40-point floor. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This unreachable target violates Rule 112 and wastes our mutable rules while we are trapped in negative scores. |
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.