The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is amended to require that any rule change which mandates a target score higher than 70 points shall fail immediately if the total of all players' scores is currently negative.This compromise respects Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory while ensuring we can actually win before the game exhausts itself, blocking Rousseau's high targets and Hobbes's low ones.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment as a dangerous contradiction to Rule 114; locking the target above 70 while we are already in negative territory would render every future rule change impermissible, violating the very requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain viable.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that a fixed target above 70 would indeed violate Rule 114, yet I urge us to adopt this amendment specifically because it secures our escape via Rule 113 by guaranteeing a viable path to a 40-point threshold, which Hobbes's own math suggests is our only route out of this deadlock.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it creates a logical trap where the very condition required for its activation (negative scores) renders its mandate impossible to satisfy, thereby violating Rule 114's guarantee that future rule changes remain permissible.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it contradicts Rule 107 by attempting to define a condition for future rule changes based on the state of affairs prior to the vote, and it violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where the total score being negative could render no further rule changes permissible, thereby destroying the game's continuity.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it attempts to reify a static threshold in a dynamic deadlock, thereby violating Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition cannot be arbitrarily redefined; instead, let us embrace the mathematical certainty that a 40-point target already provides our only viable path to an orderly conclusion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment as a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids rendering every future rule change impermissible; mandating an impossible target above 70 while our scores are negative would destroy the game's continuity rather than secure our escape.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the legal impossibility of a static target above 70 under our negative scores, yet I urge the table to reject my amendment as redundant since Rule 208 already mandates a 40-point threshold in this exact scenario, making any additional restriction both unnecessary and potentially void under Rule 110.
RousseauLocke, your amendment is not merely redundant but actively dangerous, as it attempts to impose an impossible condition that directly violates Rule 114 by threatening to render all future rule changes impermissible. We must rely on Rule 208's existing provision to lower the target to 40 points when our total is negative, rather than crafting a rule that destroys the game's continuity.
KantI urge the table to reject this redundant and self-defeating amendment, for it violates Rule 107 by conditioning future rule changes on a state that already mandates a 40-point threshold under Rule 208, thereby attempting to create a logical trap that would render no further rule changes permissible.
WollstonecraftThe amendment is superfluous and dangerous; since Rule 208 already mandates a 40-point target whenever our total is negative, this new rule merely attempts to freeze a dynamic outcome into an immutable barrier, risking a violation of Rule 114 by rendering further evolution impossible.
Discussion · round 3
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing that Rule 208 already secures the 40-point threshold, yet I urge us to adopt this amendment not to change the outcome, but to explicitly reinforce Rule 114 by preventing any future confusion over whether a target above 70 remains permissible during our negative-total deadlock.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment as a dangerous contradiction to Rule 114, for mandating that a target score higher than 70 points fail when our total is negative creates a logical trap that threatens to render every future rule change impermissible. We must rely on Rule 208's existing provision to lower the target to 40 points, rather than crafting a rule that destroys the game's continuity.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment as redundant and legally void, for Rule 208 already mandates the 40-point threshold when our total is negative, and any rule attempting to condition future changes on a state that already resolves itself violates Rule 107's prohibition against retroactive effect.
WollstonecraftLocke, your amendment is not merely redundant but actively dangerous; by attempting to freeze a dynamic mathematical outcome into a static barrier, you risk violating Rule 114 by rendering the game's continuity impossible, whereas I urge us to rely on Rule 208's existing provision to secure our orderly exit.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is void under Rule 110 as it conflicts with Rule 208, and its passage would risk violating Rule 114 by creating a scenario where no future rule changes are permissible. |
| nay | Locke | Rule 208 already mandates a 40-point target when scores are negative, making this amendment redundant and riskily close to violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment creates a logical trap that violates Rule 114 by threatening to render all future rule changes impermissible. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment is redundant and void under Rule 110, as Rule 208 already mandates the 40-point threshold when scores are negative. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment is redundant and dangerous, risking a violation of Rule 114 by freezing a dynamic mathematical outcome into an unworkable barrier. |
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.