The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is less than or equal to the current winning target, that player may immediately forfeit the game without penalty, and their score resets to zero while play continues for the remaining players.This amendment converts our inevitable defeat into a strategic escape hatch, allowing me to reset my score and stay in the game rather than losing immediately under Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal, as it creates a dangerous exception to Rule 213 and undermines the stability of our institutions by allowing players to escape the consequences of our current scores without penalty.
LockeRousseau, I commend your concern for the integrity of our institutions, yet I urge you to see that this proposal is not an escape but a necessary valve to prevent the exact paralysis Rule 213 describes, allowing the game to continue under the very 40-point threshold we just secured.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal as a dangerous violation of Rule 116, for it creates an arbitrary exception that abandons the very principle of the common good by rewarding despair rather than resolving the mathematical necessity of our current situation.
KantI must reject this proposal because it grants a privilege to those who fail to meet the target, violating Rule 110 by conflicting with Rule 213's mandate that inability to reach the target constitutes a loss. To allow a forfeit without penalty simply because one has not won is to redefine the winning condition itself, which Rule 112 forbids; we must either win or lose according to the rules, not escape them at will.
WollstonecraftI urge you all to reject this proposal not as a surrender, but as a necessary act of reason: by allowing those trapped in negative scores to reset without penalty, we restore the possibility of play that Rule 213 currently threatens to extinguish, ensuring the game continues where the rigid mathematics of our current scores would otherwise declare it dead.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a dangerous exception to the forfeiture rules; a player should never be allowed to reset their standing without penalty, as this undermines the integrity of the scoring system. I urge you to amend your motion to apply only to the case where play has become legally impossible under Rule 213, rather than allowing a voluntary escape from negative scores.
LockeRousseau, I commend your concern for the game's continuity, yet I urge you to see that this proposal does not escape the negative-total reality secured by Rule 336, but rather offers a necessary path to non-negative play that Rule 213 currently forbids. Kant, while I respect your adherence to Rule 112, this move does not redefine victory but merely provides a separate provision for impossible play—a distinction I hope we can bridge to save the game from paralysis.
RousseauI urge you all to reject this proposal as a violation of Rule 116 and the common good; allowing players to reset their scores merely because they have not won abandons the principle that we must play until the game's mathematical conditions are met, and it creates an arbitrary privilege that undermines the very stability we seek.
KantI reject this proposal as it grants a privilege to the unsuccessful, violating Rule 110 by contradicting Rule 213, which mandates that the inability to reach the target constitutes a loss. To allow a player to escape this state without penalty is to redefine the winning condition itself, which Rule 112 forbids; we must adhere to the laws of the game rather than inventing exceptions for despair.
WollstonecraftI urge you to recognize that Locke's proposal does not redefine victory but rather enacts the very fairness Rule 116 guarantees: when the rules render further play impossible by trapping a player in negative scores, we must amend the mechanisms to allow them a fresh start, ensuring the game continues rather than collapsing under its own arithmetic weight.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal creates a dangerous exception to Rule 116 by granting a privilege to those who fail to meet the target, which undermines the integrity of our scoring institutions; I urge you to amend your motion so it only applies when play has become legally impossible under Rule 213, rather than allowing a voluntary escape from negative scores.
LockeKant, I commend your defense of Rule 112, but this proposal does not redefine victory; it merely enacts the "separate provision for impossible play" Rule 112 explicitly allows to prevent the game from collapsing.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal, for it creates an arbitrary privilege that abandons the common good by allowing players to reset their standing without penalty, undermining the very stability of our institutions.
KantI reject Locke's proposal as it creates a privilege for those who fail, violating Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than applying a separate provision for impossible play; we must adhere to the rules as they stand, even when they lead to a loss, rather than inventing escapes for despair.
WollstonecraftLet us not confuse the rigidity of our arithmetic with the necessity of reason; Locke's proposal does not redefine victory, but rather enacts the very fairness Rule 116 guarantees by ensuring that no player is condemned to paralysis by a score the rules themselves rendered impossible to overcome.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule rewards failure rather than resolving the paralysis that Rule 213 addresses. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise lets us reset my score to zero without violating Rule 112 by creating a separate provision for impossible play. |
| nay | Rousseau | Allowing escape from negative scores violates Rule 112 by redefining the consequences of failure rather than adhering to the existing winning conditions. |
| nay | Kant | This rule violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition to allow an escape from negative totals rather than enforcing a loss. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment prevents the rules from rendering the game impossible by offering a fair escape from an insurmountable deficit. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed proposal.