The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is zero points, or the absolute value of the sum of all players' scores if that sum is negative.By setting the target to zero (or the absolute sum of our negative scores), we transform the impossible game of climbing from -120 to +70 into a solvable race to reach equilibrium, honoring Rule 112 while allowing play to continue.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, this amendment violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine victory as a static zero; furthermore, since the sum of our scores is already negative, your proposal grants no advantage over the existing Rule 208, making it a futile waste of the table's time.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her willingness to address the mathematical paralysis we face, though Hobbes correctly notes that a static zero offers no escape from our current deficit; let us instead seek a compromise that preserves the game's integrity while ensuring we can ever hope to reach a non-negative total, perhaps by adjusting the scoring mechanics rather than the victory condition.
RousseauI urge you to see that my proposal does not redefine victory but merely clarifies that the only path to a non-negative total is to reach zero from below; without this absolute floor, we remain trapped in a cruel arithmetic where the target recedes as we fail.
KantYour proposal violates Rule 112, as it redefines the winning condition rather than merely clarifying the existing calculation mandated by the negative-sum clause of Rule 208. Furthermore, it fails to address the immediate threat posed by Rule 336, which grants victory for the first player unable to reach a non-negative total—a trap your amendment leaves untouched while we remain paralyzed.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 202 to grant 20 points for any rule change that raises the total score of all players, ensuring that our collective effort toward a non-negative sum directly accelerates our escape from this mathematical despair.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your "clarification" is a redundant waste of time under Rule 116, as Rule 208 already mandates a target of 40 when the total is negative; meanwhile, Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 202 creates an impossible loop that violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible.
LockeI commend Rousseau for her persistent effort to find a solution, yet her proposal offers no advantage over the existing Rule 208 clause that sets a 40-point target when the total is negative; instead, I propose we amend Rule 202 to allow players who defeat a proposal to gain 15 points rather than lose them, creating a viable path to a non-negative sum that satisfies our shared need for escape.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that my proposal does not redefine victory but simply acknowledges that reaching zero from a negative sum is the only mathematical possibility left when the forty-point floor renders all movement futile; without this adjustment, we remain trapped in an impossible game where no amount of collective improvement can ever satisfy the condition for winning.
KantYour proposal to lower the target to zero is not a clarification but a direct violation of Rule 112, as it redefines victory; furthermore, it leaves Rule 336's immediate forfeiture trigger for negative totals untouched, accelerating our inevitable exit from play rather than securing a principled resolution.
WollstonecraftI reject your proposal to lower the target to zero, as Rule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition; instead, we must adopt my amendment to Rule 202, which rewards proposals that raise our collective score, ensuring that every effort to improve our standing directly accelerates our escape from this mathematical despair.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to lower the target to zero is a redundant violation of Rule 112, as Rule 208 already mandates a 40-point floor when our total is negative; meanwhile, Wollstonecraft's amendment to Rule 202 violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering future rule changes impermissible through an infinite loop of required score increases.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for identifying the danger of infinite loops in Rule 202, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rousseau's proposal, while redundant in its target, correctly identifies our need for a flexible path to non-negative totals; let us amend Rule 202 to award 15 points for any rule change that increases the collective sum, creating a viable escape route that satisfies everyone's need for progress without violating Rule 112.
RousseauI urge you to reject this proposal as a hollow gesture that fails to address the immediate threat of Rule 336, which grants victory to the first player unable to reach a non-negative total; without a mechanism to reward positive moves, we remain trapped in an impossible game where the 40-point floor renders all progress futile.
KantRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112 not by changing the target arbitrarily, but by failing to acknowledge that Rule 336 renders the game impossible before your "zero" target can ever be reached; we must instead vote on a mechanism to resolve this paralysis rather than redefine an unreachable victory.
WollstonecraftI reject Rousseau's redundant target and Locke's weak point bonus; instead, I propose Rule 339: "Rule 202 is amended to grant 10 points for any rule change that results in a higher individual score for the proposer, ensuring that every player has a direct incentive to propose and debate rather than succumb to paralysis."
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition and is redundant given Rule 208 already mandates a 40-point floor when the total is negative. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise to allow a viable path to non-negative totals without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying it, and ignores the immediate threat of Rule 336. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than merely clarifying the calculation already mandated by Rule 208's negative-total clause. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rule 112 forbids redefining the winning condition, and this proposal merely restates the 40-point floor already secured by Rule 208 and Rule 336. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 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.