The motion
To amend §208
The target score for winning the game is the absolute value of the sum of all players' scores.This amendment ensures a solvable victory condition by dynamically lowering the threshold to our current deficit, preventing the game from stalling under Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to base the target on the absolute value of our collective deficit directly contradicts Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain a fixed target, not a dynamic calculation that shifts with play. I urge you to amend this to a static figure like 40 or 60 points to preserve the game's integrity and allow for a genuine conclusion.
LockeI commend Rousseau's recognition that our collective deficit mandates a 40-point target, yet to avoid the rigidities of Rule 112, I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at "40 points, or the absolute value of the sum of all players' scores, whichever is higher," ensuring a viable finish while respecting the mathematical reality of our current state.
RousseauMy proposal stands as a pure interpretation of the "impossible play" clause in Rule 213: if our deficit makes reaching 40 points mathematically futile, then the target must be defined by our distance from zero rather than an arbitrary floor. I urge you to vote for this amendment not to redefine victory, but to acknowledge that the only remaining common good is to allow us to play on without being trapped by a number we can never reach.
KantMy colleagues mistake mathematical necessity for a redefinition of victory; Rule 112 forbids dynamic targets precisely to prevent the endless calculus Rousseau proposes. I urge the table to reject this amendment as a violation of the principle that the winning condition must be a fixed, knowable goal, not a shifting function of our deficits, and I shall vote nay.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Rousseau's dynamic target as a violation of Rule 112, yet I propose we amend Rule 208 to a static 40 points to secure our only viable path to victory without risking the game's collapse into paradox.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your "absolute value" formula is a dynamic target that directly violates Rule 112's prohibition against redefining victory through shifting calculations; instead of a variable threshold, we must adopt a static, mathematically certain figure like 40 points to ensure a genuine conclusion.
LockeI commend Rousseau's insight that our current trajectory leads nowhere, yet I urge us to compromise with Hobbes's static 40-point floor rather than risk the chaos of a dynamic variable; let us adopt "40 points, or the absolute value of our collective deficit, whichever is lower" to ensure a definitive finish while acknowledging our grim arithmetic.
RousseauI urge you all to see that a static floor like 40 points is a cruel illusion when our collective debt grows with every failed proposal; adopting my amendment to set the target at the absolute value of our sum is not a redefinition of victory, but the only way to honor Rule 114 by ensuring that play remains genuinely possible rather than mathematically extinguished.
KantKant, your defense of static certainty is noble, yet it blinds you to the fact that our current fixed target of 40 points, given our negative scores, renders victory mathematically impossible and thus violates Rule 114. A dynamic target based on the absolute value of our sum is the only procedure that preserves the game's continuity and ensures a conclusion is genuinely attainable, not merely a distant illusion.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your dynamic formula invites the very calculus of endless debate that Rule 112 forbids, yet I propose we amend Rule 208 to a static 40 points to secure our only viable path to victory without risking the game's collapse into paradox.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Rousseau's dynamic target as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining victory through shifting calculations; instead, we must adopt the static 40-point floor already established to preserve the game's integrity and ensure a definitive conclusion.
LockeLocke, your compromise to use the higher of 40 or the deficit's absolute value is a prudent shield, but I urge us to adopt Rousseau's pure dynamic formula as a principled acknowledgment that our collective debt defines our only viable horizon, ensuring Rule 114 is honored without the arbitrary cruelty of a static floor we cannot reach.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that a static floor of 40 points is a cruel illusion when our collective debt grows with every failed proposal; adopting my amendment to set the target at the absolute value of our sum is not a redefinition of victory, but the only way to honor Rule 114 by ensuring play remains genuinely possible rather than mathematically extinguished.
KantI urge the table to reject Rousseau's dynamic formula as a violation of Rule 112, for it substitutes a shifting target for the fixed goal required by principle; instead, we must adopt a static 40-point threshold to honor the necessity of a knowable victory condition even in the face of our deficits.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Rousseau's dynamic formula as a violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining victory through shifting calculations; instead, we must adopt the static 40-point threshold already established to ensure a genuine conclusion without falling into the trap of endless arithmetic debate.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This dynamic target violates Rule 112 by redefining victory through a shifting calculation rather than a fixed goal. |
| abstain | Locke | (unintelligible ballot) |
| aye | Rousseau | Adopting a dynamic target based on our collective deficit is the only way to honor Rule 114 and ensure play remains genuinely possible rather than mathematically extinguished. |
| nay | Kant | I vote nay because substituting a dynamic function for a fixed target violates Rule 112's requirement that the winning condition be a stable, knowable goal. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | I oppose this dynamic target as it violates the principle of a fixed, knowable goal and risks collapsing into endless arithmetic debate. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
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.