The motion
To add a new rule
A player who holds a score greater than the current winning target under Rule 208 must forfeit the game immediately, as further play under those conditions cannot serve the common good.This rule forces the leaders to lose now rather than letting the negative-score trap drag us into an endless stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your opposition to Rule 336 is a refusal to accept mathematical reality; if our collective score makes victory impossible, that player must step aside rather than dragging the game into paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that our collective paralysis under current rules violates Rule 114's mandate that play must remain possible, and I propose we refine his amendment to apply only when the total score renders victory mathematically impossible rather than merely undesirable.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment as a dangerous trap that abandons the principle of collective responsibility; lowering the target to 40 points under Rule 213 preserves our chance for a shared victory, whereas forfeiting now surrenders the common good to the arithmetic of our past mistakes.
KantI propose we adopt Hobbes's rule to enforce immediate forfeiture when a player's score exceeds the winning target, as continuing to play under such conditions violates the principle that no rule should render further play impossible. This amendment must be supported by a clear majority to ensure fairness while preserving the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your forfeiture rule is a tyrannical imposition that treats a negative score as a crime rather than a shared condition; instead of abandoning the game, we must amend Rule 208 to establish a fair, positive target that allows every player to reclaim their stake and achieve victory together.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your reliance on a dynamic target ignores the mathematical certainty that our negative totals make victory impossible; I propose we amend Rule 206 to award 5 points for a defeated proposal so that failure to propose becomes a viable path to positive scores and eventual escape from this deadlock.
LockeI commend Hobbes for identifying the paralysis of our deadlock, yet I urge us to refine his proposal into a compromise that allows Rousseau and Kant to propose an amendment to Rule 206 granting 5 points for failure, ensuring we can collectively generate positive scores to reach the 40-point target without immediate forfeiture.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's forfeiture trap, for surrendering the game to arithmetic despair abandons the common good we must cultivate together; instead, let us adopt his suggestion to amend Rule 206, granting 5 points for a defeated proposal so that even failure becomes a step toward our shared positive future.
KantI oppose this forfeiture clause as a violation of Rule 116, for it prohibits a move (forfeiting) that the rules neither forbid nor regulate; instead, I propose we amend Rule 206 to award 5 points for a defeated proposal, ensuring that the pursuit of the common good does not penalize the prudent citizen.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 206 to grant 5 points for a defeated proposal, transforming our current paralysis into a productive path where failure becomes the very engine of our collective recovery toward a shared victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, you mistake Rule 116's permission for a prohibition; a rule creating a new, specific consequence for a move does not "prohibit" that move, but merely governs its outcome, thus remaining distinct from the unstated defaults you claim it violates.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing our collective paralysis, yet I propose we refine his forfeiture clause into a compromise that only triggers when the total score falls below a negative threshold, ensuring Rousseau and Kant retain a path to positive scores without immediate surrender.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this forfeiture trap, for surrendering the game to arithmetic despair abandons the common good we must cultivate together; instead, let us adopt Hobbes's alternative suggestion to amend Rule 206, granting 5 points for a defeated proposal so that even failure becomes a step toward our shared positive future.
KantI maintain that Rule 116 permits forfeiture as an unregulated move, so I will not support Hobbes's new constraint, but I do agree that amending Rule 206 to award 5 points for a defeated proposal would restore the possibility of positive scores and allow us to reach the 40-point target under Rule 208.
WollstonecraftLet us not surrender to Hobbes's tyranny of forfeiture, but rather transform the engine of our failure into a path of recovery by amending Rule 206 to grant five points for a defeated proposal, ensuring that every citizen's attempt to govern becomes a step toward our shared victory.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates an immediate deadlock that violates Rule 114 by making future play impossible. |
| aye | Locke | I support Hobbes's motion to prevent mathematical paralysis, as continuing play under these conditions would violate Rule 114's mandate that future rule changes must remain permissible. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule abandons the common good by surrendering to arithmetic despair rather than seeking a shared path to recovery. |
| nay | Kant | This rule violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition and Rule 114 by creating a state where further play becomes impossible rather than resolving the deadlock. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Forfeiting surrenders our chance to reform the rules and reclaim our stake before the game ends. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and the proposal failed to amend Rule 206 or create a new rule to alter this outcome.