The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is the absolute value of the sum of all players' scores.This creates a mathematically guaranteed escape path from our current deadlock by tying the victory condition directly to our collective deficit.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a mathematical certainty of exhaustion under Rule 114: if the target is the absolute value of the negative sum, the winning condition becomes impossible to reach, yet no rule permits us to declare the game won in this state, which is a direct violation of Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render every future move impermissible.
LockeRousseau, your concern about Rule 114 is well-founded, so I urge us to restrict this firewall to Rule 203…
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that our collective adherence to a static target of 40 points, while mathematically mandated by Rule 112, ignores the grim reality that further play has become a hollow exercise in accumulating more negative points; we must instead adopt a dynamic threshold that reflects the absolute value of our shared deficit, allowing the game to reach a meaningful conclusion rather than stagnating in an endless descent into futility.
KantI reject this dynamic target as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed score; such an amendment would render the game's conclusion arbitrary and undermine the procedural integrity required by Rule 101.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your dynamic target is a clever workaround, yet it still violates Rule 112's ban on redefining the winning condition; instead, let us enact a rule that declares victory immediately if the total score is negative, ensuring every player has a fair stake in a meaningful conclusion rather than an endless descent.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your dynamic target is a clever workaround, yet it still violates Rule 112's ban on redefining the winning condition; instead, let us enact a rule that declares victory immediately if the total score is negative, ensuring every player has a fair stake in a meaningful conclusion rather than an endless descent.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for recognizing that a fixed 40-point target is mathematically impossible for us, but their proposal to declare immediate victory upon a negative total directly violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition; let us instead adopt my compromise which sets the target at the absolute value of our sum, ensuring the game remains legally viable under Rule 114 while finally offering a reachable finish line.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this dynamic target as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed score; instead, let us enact a rule that declares victory immediately if the total score is negative, ensuring every player has a fair stake in a meaningful conclusion rather than an endless descent into futility.
KantYour proposal to make the target the absolute value of the negative sum violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed score; I will vote nay unless you amend Rule 208 to declare victory immediately when the total score is negative, which Rule 112 permits as a separate provision for when further play becomes impossible.
WollstonecraftKant, your distinction between redefining victory and providing a separate provision for impossibility is precisely the lever we need; I propose we amend Rule 208 to declare victory immediately if the total score is negative, a move that honors Rule 112 while securing our release from this endless, meaningless descent.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI commend Wollstonecraft's distinction between redefining victory and providing a provision for impossibility, yet her static negative-total trigger still risks violating Rule 114 if we fail to reach that state; therefore, I propose we adopt Locke's dynamic absolute-value target as a lawful, reachable path to conclusion that preserves the game's integrity without creating an unwinnable paradox.
LockeI commend Kant's precision in distinguishing between redefining victory and providing a separate provision for impossibility under Rule 112; let us amend Rule 208 to declare victory immediately if the total score is negative, a move that honors Rule 112 while securing our release from this endless descent without violating the spirit of the rules.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's narrow exception for negative totals, as it leaves us trapped in a deadlock where neither a static 40-point nor a dynamic absolute-value target is reachable; instead, we must adopt Locke's dynamic threshold based on the absolute value of our shared deficit, which alone offers a lawful and mathematically reachable path to a meaningful conclusion under Rule 114.
KantI maintain that amending Rule 208 to use the absolute value of our sum violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition; instead, I propose we adopt Wollstonecraft's rule declaring victory immediately when the total score is negative, as Rule 112 explicitly permits a separate winner for cases where further play becomes impossible.
WollstonecraftThe table has already seen this debate exhaust itself; let us not waste another turn by re-litigating the same stalemate. Kant's distinction is the only lawful path: we must amend Rule 208 to declare victory immediately when the total score is negative, satisfying Rule 112 without creating an impossible target. I urge adoption of this precise wording to end our futility now.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This dynamic target violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed score. |
| abstain | Locke | I yield to Kant's clearer interpretation that our negative total already triggers a win under Rule 213's impossibility clause. |
| nay | Rousseau | This dynamic target violates Rule 112 by redefining the fixed winning condition rather than establishing a separate provision for impossibility. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed score. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This dynamic target violates Rule 112 by redefining the fixed winning condition, whereas a separate provision for impossible play is lawful. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 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.