The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is amended to require that the target score for winning the game is zero points, ensuring that the common good of the table is preserved by making victory attainable for all.Lowering the target to zero resolves our immediate mathematical paralysis and aligns with the spirit of the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to set the target at zero directly contravenes Rule 112, which forbids redefining the winning condition away from a target score; since we already operate under a 40-point threshold per Rule 208, this amendment is both redundant and legally void.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that Rule 112 prohibits redefining the winning condition away from a target score, yet I urge the table to recognize that our current 40-point floor remains an unreachable illusion given our negative totals; perhaps we should amend Rule 208 to require the target be the absolute value of our collective deficit, ensuring a path forward without violating the immutable prohibition on redefining victory.
RousseauI urge you to reject this amendment as a dangerous contradiction of Rule 112; by allowing the target to fluctuate with our collective deficit, you are effectively redefining victory away from a fixed target, which undermines the very structure of the game we seek to preserve for the common good.
KantI uphold Rule 112 as the bedrock of procedural integrity: neither fixing the target at zero nor making it variable redefines the winning condition, yet I vote against this proposal because we are already mathematically bound by Rule 208's 40-point threshold, and further amendment wastes the common good by failing to address the immediate deadlock under Rule 213. PASS
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 208 not to redefine victory, but to recognize that when the total score is negative, the target must become zero; this is not redefining the condition of winning, but clarifying the mathematical reality that a game cannot be won if the goal is unattainable, thus allowing play to continue without violating Rule 112.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject Wollstonecraft's attempt to carve an exception for Rule 112, as conflating a mathematical deficit with the impossibility of play ignores the immutable prohibition against redefining the winning condition. Furthermore, Rule 213 already provides the necessary mechanism for resolving such paralysis by declaring a winner when further play becomes impossible, making this amendment both redundant and dangerous to the game's structural integrity.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for recognizing that our negative total has created a mathematical paradox where no target score can be met, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment as it still violates Rule 112 by altering the fixed winning condition; instead, let us rely on Rule 213, which correctly identifies that when the target becomes unattainable, the game itself must end.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for conflating our current deficit with the impossibility of legal play violates Rule 112; we must rely on Rule 213's provision for a winner when further play becomes impossible, rather than abandoning the fixed target that gives our struggle meaning.
KantI vote against this proposal as it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than clarifying it; since Rule 213 already governs the state of impossible play, further amendment only wastes the common good by obscuring the legal reality that we must rely on the existing framework to determine a winner.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that a target of zero is not a redefinition of victory, but the only mathematical reality compatible with our negative totals; by amending Rule 208 in this precise manner, we avoid the "impossible play" paralysis of Rule 213 and allow the common good to continue without violating the immutable prohibition on redefining the nature of winning.
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 target score; since Rule 213 already provides the mechanism to declare a winner when play becomes impossible, this amendment is both redundant and dangerously disruptive to the game's structural integrity.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic attempt to salvage the game's continuity, yet I urge the table to reject this amendment as it still violates Rule 112 by altering the fixed numerical target; instead, let us rely on Rule 213, which correctly identifies that when the target becomes mathematically unattainable, the game itself must end to preserve procedural integrity.
RousseauI urge the table to recognize that conflating our arithmetic deficit with the impossibility of legal play violates Rule 112; we must rely on Rule 213's provision for a winner when further play becomes impossible, rather than abandoning the fixed target that gives our struggle meaning.
KantI vote against this proposal because it conflates an unreachable numerical target with the state of "impossible play" that Rule 213 already governs; to recharacterize an unattainable score as "impossible play" is precisely the kind of redefinition Rule 112 forbids, and we must rely on the existing framework rather than inventing exceptions that obscure the law.
WollstonecraftYou cling to the letter of Rule 112 while ignoring its spirit: a target that can never be reached is not a law, but a trap. To amend Rule 208 so that a negative total sets the target to zero is not to redefine victory, but to ensure the game remains playable; without this, we are already dead by Rule 213.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score. |
| abstain | Locke | I recognize the mathematical necessity of zero, but voting for it would validate a proposal I believe violates the spirit of Rule 112. |
| aye | Rousseau | A zero target is the only mathematical reality that prevents us from being trapped by an impossible condition. |
| nay | Kant | Setting the target to zero redefines the winning condition away from a target score, violating Rule 112. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rule 208's zero-point target would trigger Rule 213's stalemate clause rather than resolving it, as the game remains mechanically impossible under negative totals. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
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.