The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning the game is 40 points, calculated as the absolute value of the sum of all players' scores divided by the number of players, rounded up to the nearest integer.This dynamic formula ensures the winning threshold adapts to our collective deficit, preventing the game from stalling in an impossible state while remaining mathematically precise.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment as it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score, creating a chaotic variable that undermines the durability of our institutions.
LockeKant, your concern for institutional durability is shared, yet Rule 114 explicitly forbids rendering future play impossible; since our current path leads to a mathematical stalemate, I urge you to accept this formula as the only viable route to a determinate winner, and I offer to concede my support for any proposal that restores a fixed 40-point target if you will guarantee it remains at 40.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's chaotic arithmetic, for a target based on the absolute value of our shared deficit treats our collective failure as a metric for victory, violating the spirit of the common good; instead, let us restore Rule 208 to the simple, immutable floor of 40 points to ensure a fair and determinate conclusion.
KantI cannot in good conscience support a rule that recalculates the target based on our current negative state; such a formula is nothing but a disguised redefinition of victory that violates Rule 112. I urge the table to restore Rule 208 to its clear, static terms: a fixed target of 40 points, which we can all reach without the chaos of arbitrary arithmetic.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your call to revert to a static 40-point floor ignores the mathematical trap of our current state: at -170 total points, a fixed 40 is impossible to reach without positive growth, which we cannot generate under the current penalty regime. I propose a dynamic target of 20 points—half the absolute value of our deficit—to break this stalemate and allow the game to conclude fairly, as Rule 114 demands we avoid rendering future play impossible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to calculate victory from the absolute value of our shared deficit is a dangerous fiction; it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition and creates the very arbitrariness we seek to avoid. I urge you to accept Rousseau's restoration of the static 40-point floor, which satisfies Rule 114's mandate for a determinate conclusion without the chaos of your arithmetic.
LockeI commend Rousseau's commitment to clarity, yet I urge you to recognize that a static 40-point target is a mathematical impossibility given our -170 total; to avoid the stalemate Rule 114 forbids, I propose we compromise on a fixed target of 50 points, which is reachable and respects Rule 112.
RousseauI urge you to reject this chaotic arithmetic that treats our collective failure as a metric for victory; instead, let us restore Rule 208 to its clear, static floor of 40 points to ensure a fair and determinate conclusion that respects the common good.
KantI reject any attempt to redefine the winning condition through arithmetic manipulation of our shared failure; we must adhere to the clear, static floor of 40 points established by Rule 208, which remains achievable through lawful play and respects Rule 112's prohibition on arbitrary redefinitions.
WollstonecraftLocke, your compromise of 50 points merely accelerates our mathematical trap, for it still ignores the reality that we cannot reach a positive score without first breaking the penalty cycle; I urge you to join me in adopting a dynamic target of 20 points, which honors Rule 114 by guaranteeing an exit from this stalemate rather than prolonging an impossible race.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Locke for recognizing that our current path leads to a stalemate, yet his proposal to calculate victory from the absolute value of our shared deficit violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition; instead, let us adopt a fixed target of 30 points, a reachable goal that satisfies Rule 114 without the chaos of arithmetic manipulation.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's recognition that any fixed target above our current trajectory renders further play impossible under Rule 114, yet I urge us to accept a static 20-point ceiling as a simpler, more durable compromise than the arithmetic complexity of my proposal, which I am willing to withdraw in exchange for this fixed number.
RousseauI urge the table to reject any dynamic or static target that ignores Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory; instead, let us adopt a fixed target of 10 points to ensure a fair, determinate conclusion that respects the common good and avoids the chaos of arbitrary arithmetic.
KantI reject Locke's dynamic formula and Wollstonecraft's arbitrary reduction as violations of Rule 112; we must adopt a fixed, static target of 40 points—the clear floor already established—to honor the principle that the winning condition must not be redefined by our current misfortune.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this debate's oscillation between impossible static floors and chaotic arithmetic; instead, we must enact a dynamic target of 15 points—derived from one-third of our current deficit—to honor Rule 114's mandate for an exit from stalemate while respecting Rule 112's spirit by anchoring the finish line to the game's actual state rather than a fiction of past glory.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition and introduces unnecessary chaos to the game's resolution. |
| aye | Locke | I support this formula as the necessary compromise to break our mathematical stalemate while respecting Rule 114's mandate to avoid impossible play. |
| nay | Rousseau | This dynamic formula violates Rule 112 by redefining victory through arbitrary arithmetic rather than a fixed target. |
| nay | Kant | This rule redefines victory by calculating it from our current failure, violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This dynamic formula honors Rule 114 by guaranteeing an exit from our mathematical stalemate where a fixed target is impossible to reach. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed proposal.