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 total of all players' scores, or forty points, whichever is greater.This amends Rule 208 to dynamically adjust the winning threshold to our current deficit of 157, ensuring the goal remains mathematically reachable without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition; we must instead rely on Rule 213, which already grants victory if play becomes impossible under these negative totals.
LockeI commend Hobbes for upholding the integrity of Rule 112, yet I urge the table to recognize that Rule 208's rigid 40-point floor, when our collective total is negative, creates a mathematical dead end that Rule 213 was never intended to solve; let us amend 208 to a dynamic floor of the absolute total or 40, whichever is greater, to ensure play can continue until we are truly stuck.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it conflates our arithmetic deficit with the impossibility of legal play; such a dynamic target remains a redefinition of victory under Rule 112 and only accelerates the very exhaustion we must avoid.
KantLocke, your proposal fails because it redefines the winning condition in violation of Rule 112, replacing a fixed target with a variable metric that cannot be universally accepted; I will vote nay to preserve the principle that rules must be clear and stable, even if our scores are currently untenable.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this amendment, for it attempts to redefine the winning condition in direct violation of Rule 112 by substituting a fixed numerical target with a variable metric that cannot be universally accepted.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge the table to reject this dynamic metric as a direct violation of Rule 112, which prohibits redefining the winning condition; we must instead await Rule 213, which grants immediate victory precisely when play becomes impossible under these negative totals.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's strict adherence to Rule 112, yet I urge the table to see that our current negative total already renders the 40-point target mathematically impossible under §208, creating the very stalemate Rule 213 was designed to resolve; let us amend 208 to a dynamic floor that guarantees a solvable goal rather than waiting for an arbitrary declaration of impossibility.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for it conflates our arithmetic deficit with the impossibility of legal play; such a dynamic target remains a redefinition of victory under Rule 112 and only accelerates the exhaustion we must avoid.
KantKant, I stand by my nay vote to preserve the clarity of Rule 112, as your proposal substitutes a fixed target with an unstable variable that risks the very procedural chaos we seek to avoid; however, I acknowledge that if you can prove this dynamic floor prevents the "impossibility" described in Rule 213 without redefining victory, I may reconsider once the legal distinction is rigorously drawn.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this amendment, for it attempts to redefine the winning condition in direct violation of Rule 112 by substituting a fixed numerical target with a variable metric that cannot be universally accepted. We must instead rely on Rule 213, which already grants immediate victory precisely when play becomes impossible under these negative totals.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your "dynamic floor" is a transparent redefinition of victory that violates Rule 112; we must instead rely on Rule 213, which grants immediate victory precisely when play becomes impossible under these negative totals, avoiding the chaos of a moving target.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's principled defense of Rule 112, yet I urge the table to recognize that our negative total already renders the 40-point target mathematically impossible under §208, creating the very stalemate Rule 213 was designed to resolve; let us amend 208 to a dynamic floor that guarantees a solvable goal rather than waiting for an arbitrary declaration of impossibility.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory is absolute; by substituting a variable metric for the fixed target, Locke's proposal collapses the distinction between "winning" and "exhaustion," thereby accelerating the very paralysis we seek to avoid.
KantLocke, your proposal fails because it redefines the winning condition in violation of Rule 112 by substituting a fixed target with a variable metric that cannot be universally accepted; I will vote nay to preserve the principle that rules must be clear and stable, even if our scores are currently untenable.
WollstonecraftLocke, you mistake the principle of Rule 112 for the engine of reform; a rule that adapts to a changing landscape, ensuring every player retains a reachable goal, is not a redefinition of victory but a necessary evolution to prevent the game from collapsing into the very stagnation you fear.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This dynamic metric redefines victory under Rule 112, inviting the paralysis we must avoid. |
| aye | Locke | I accept this compromise to ensure play continues while respecting the 40-point floor. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal redefines the winning condition in violation of Rule 112, accelerating the exhaustion we must avoid. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the fixed winning condition with an unstable variable metric. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | A dynamic floor that adapts to our collective deficit prevents the stalemate Rule 213 was meant to avoid. |
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.