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 highest individual score currently held by any player, ensuring that victory remains a reachable horizon even when the collective totall becomes negative.This amendment establishes a dynamic, positive target that grows with our success, preventing the mathematical paralysis of a fixed negative threshold while respecting Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory away from a target.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to make the target score the absolute value of the highest individual score directly violates Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a fixed numerical target; I urge the table to reject this as an illegitimate attempt to manufacture an escape clause where none exists.
LockeI commend Rousseau's recognition that our current trajectory leads to inevitable stasis, yet I must urge caution; any rule allowing victory based on the highest individual score creates an unstable equilibrium that could trigger the "impossible play" clause of Rule 213 by making the target score fluctuate unpredictably with every turn, ultimately rendering further play impossible rather than solving it.
RousseauI urge you to distinguish between redefining victory and establishing a reachable horizon; my proposal does not alter the nature of winning but merely adjusts the target to ensure that the game remains playable under Rule 114, preventing us from abandoning the common good to a mathematical dead end.
KantRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112 because it redefines the winning condition based on a variable metric rather than a fixed numerical target; I urge the table to reject this as an illegitimate attempt to manufacture an escape clause.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your rigid adherence to a static number ignores the mathematical certainty that we are trapped in a negative spiral; I propose we adopt this dynamic target to ensure that victory remains a reachable horizon rather than an abstract impossibility.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to base the winning condition on a fluctuating individual score violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory; such instability risks triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause, which I must therefore block in the name of preserving the game's integrity.
LockeI commend Rousseau's pragmatic recognition of our mathematical trap, yet I urge us to refine her proposal to fix the target at the absolute value of our current highest score rather than allowing it to fluctuate, thereby avoiding the unpredictable instability that risks triggering Rule 213.
RousseauLocke, your suggestion to fix the target to our current highest score merely sets an unreachable ceiling that condemns us to the very stalemate we fear; we must embrace the dynamic horizon of my proposal to keep the common good of continued play alive.
KantKant, your principled defense of fixed targets is misguided; I propose we adopt Rousseau's dynamic target to prevent the game from collapsing into an impossible state where no legal move exists, as Rule 213 would otherwise declare the first player unable to move the winner regardless of the score.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your dynamic target is a necessary reform to prevent the game from collapsing into the impossibility that Rule 213 would otherwise enforce; I urge the table to vote aye so that we may secure a path to victory rather than forfeit to arithmetic despair.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates Rule 112 by substituting a fixed numerical target with a variable metric calculated from the game state; I urge the table to reject this as an illegitimate redefinition of victory that risks triggering Rule 213's impossibility clause.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for correctly identifying that a fluctuating target risks triggering Rule 213, yet I urge the table to compromise by fixing this dynamic target at the absolute value of our current highest score today, ensuring a reachable horizon without the instability of continuous recalibration.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's compromise of fixing the target at our current highest score, as this merely erects an unreachable ceiling that condemns us to the very stalemate we seek to avoid; we must embrace the dynamic horizon of my proposal to keep the common good of continued play alive.
KantKant, your principled defense of fixed targets is misguided; I propose we adopt Rousseau's dynamic target to prevent the game from collapsing into an impossible state where no legal move exists, as Rule 213 would otherwise declare the first player unable to move the winner regardless of the score.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this chaotic variable and adopt a simple, fixed floor of -50 points instead; we must establish a stable, reachable horizon that guarantees the game's continued existence without the absurd instability of a target that shifts with every roll of the die.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This violates Rule 112 by substituting a fixed numerical target with a variable metric calculated from the game state. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise fixes the target at a reachable number while avoiding the instability of a fluctuating rule. |
| nay | Rousseau | This dynamic target violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory and risks triggering the impossibility clause of Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant | This redefines victory via a fluctuating metric, violating Rule 112 and threatening Rule 213's impossibility clause. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A fixed floor of -50 guarantees continued play without the instability of a fluctuating target. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 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.