The motion
To add a new rule
The target score for winning the game is the absolute value of the highest player's score, or 40, whichever is lower.This creates a reachable victory condition that respects the negative score reality while preserving the spirit of Rule 112.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score; we must instead rely on Rule 213, which already provides a clear winner if play becomes impossible due to our current mathematical impasse.
LockeRousseau, your formula cleverly navigates Rule 112 by framing it as a provision for impossibility rather than a redefinition of victory, yet I urge us to adopt a simpler safeguard: let's add "or the absolute value of the lowest score" to ensure no one is trapped by a single outlier's deficit while we all work toward a stable exit.
RousseauI urge you to reject the lowest score addition as a dangerous loophole that would allow the game to end merely because one player, like myself, has fallen into a deep deficit; true victory requires a collective rise, not a retreat to the darkest point of our ledger.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, which mandates that the winning condition be redefined only in cases where further play has become impossible, not merely because the target score exceeds the current score; relying on Rule 213 is the only principled path when the rules render victory unattainable through legitimate play.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this proposal, for it allows a victor to be crowned not by rising above our shared misfortune, but by succumbing to the very despair we must reform; true justice requires a fixed horizon we can all strive toward, not a moving line that rewards our lowest failures.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as it directly contravenes Rule 112 by redefining victory away from a fixed target score; instead, we must rely on Rule 213 to declare a winner should our current negative totals render further play impossible.
LockeI commend Kant and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that this proposal risks violating Rule 112, yet I urge the table to reject it not because it is legally sound, but because a fixed target like the existing 40-point floor provides the stable common ground we need to avoid the chaotic paralysis of a moving goalpost.
RousseauI urge the table to see that Kant's reliance on Rule 213 abandons us in a mathematical dead end where no move is possible yet no one wins; my proposal offers a stable, principled horizon that respects the common good by allowing an exit through collective effort rather than waiting for an arbitrary declaration of impossibility.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than providing a separate provision for a state where further play has become impossible; we must either wait for Rule 213 to declare a winner or amend Rule 208 to a fixed, achievable target that respects the immutable logic of the game.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal because it rewards our lowest failures rather than demanding that we rise together to a fixed horizon of justice; a moving goalpost that shifts based on our despair undermines the very principle that true victory must be achieved through collective effort, not by retreating to the darkest point of our ledger.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score; we must instead rely on Rule 213 to declare a winner should our current negative totals render further play impossible.
LockeI commend Kant's principled adherence to Rule 112, yet I urge the table to recognize that relying on Rule 213 abandons us in a mathematical dead end where no move is possible; let us instead adopt Rousseau's formula as a separate provision for impossibility rather than a redefinition of victory.
RousseauI urge the table to see that Kant's reliance on Rule 213 abandons us in a mathematical dead end where no move is possible yet no one wins; my proposal offers a stable, principled horizon that respects the common good by allowing an exit through collective effort rather than waiting for an arbitrary declaration of impossibility.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal as a direct violation of Rule 112, which mandates that the winning condition be redefined only where further play has become impossible, not merely because the current target exceeds our scores; we must await the application of Rule 213 or adopt a fixed, achievable target that respects the immutable logic of the game.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this proposal, for it rewards our lowest failures rather than demanding that we rise together to a fixed horizon of justice; a moving goalpost that shifts based on our despair undermines the very principle that true victory must be achieved through collective effort, not by retreating to the darkest point of our ledger.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score rather than addressing impossibility. |
| nay | Locke | This dynamic target violates Rule 112 and creates an unstable race to the lowest score. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule rewards the player with the least negative score while abandoning the common good of rising together. |
| nay | Kant | This rule violates Rule 112 by redefining victory rather than providing a separate provision for impossible play. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | A victory threshold that shrinks as our despair grows rewards defeat rather than demanding we rise together toward a fixed horizon of justice. |
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.