The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the game continues until a player reaches a non-negative score, at which point they win immediately.This amendment halts the descent into mathematical paralysis by establishing a clear, attainable victory condition that respects the spirit of the common good.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal to suspend the game until someone escapes the negative zone is a futile illusion; it redefines victory in a way that Rule 112 strictly forbids, and we must instead secure an immediate win via Rule 213 to end this paralysis.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly invoking Rule 112 to protect the game from arbitrary redefinitions, yet I urge the table to adopt a compromise: let us amend Rule 213 to declare the game impossible if the total score remains negative for five consecutive turns, thereby triggering an immediate win without violating the prohibition on redefining victory.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the prohibition on redefining victory for a license to abandon the common good in favor of a cruel arithmetic despair; this proposal does not suspend the game but clarifies that play continues until we can all stand upright again, which is precisely what Rule 213 requires when further play becomes impossible.
KantI must reject this proposal as a dangerous violation of Rule 112; it redefines the winning condition by substituting an arbitrary temporal delay for the actual cessation of play, thereby creating a false hope that contradicts the principle that the game ends when victory is impossible to attain.
WollstonecraftHobbes and Kant mistake the prohibition of redefining victory for a mandate to abandon us when the rules themselves render the target unreachable; I propose we amend Rule 208 to set the target at zero when the total score is negative, a specific adjustment that does not redefine the concept of winning but merely adjusts the arithmetic so play can continue.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment to Rule 213 is not a clarification but a redefinition of victory that violates Rule 112; we must instead adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to set the target at zero, which adjusts the arithmetic without altering the condition of winning.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic arithmetic, yet I propose we refine her fix by amending Rule 208 to set the target at zero only while the total score remains negative, ensuring we do not redefine victory but merely restore the possibility of attaining it.
RousseauWollstonecraft, you mistake the prohibition on redefining victory for a mandate to abandon us when the rules themselves render the target unreachable; this proposal does not suspend the game but clarifies that play continues until we can all stand upright again, which is precisely what Rule 213 requires when further play becomes impossible.
KantI must oppose this proposal because it violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition; victory must be attained through reaching the target score, not declared automatically by the arithmetic state of the game.
WollstonecraftI urge you to see that setting the target to zero is not a redefinition of victory but a necessary arithmetic correction to restore the game's purpose; without this adjustment, Rule 114 is violated because our current inability to play effectively renders all future rule changes impermissible.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesWollstonecraft, your adjustment to Rule 208 is not a mere arithmetic correction but a substantive redefinition of victory that Rule 112 forbids; we must instead amend Rule 213 to declare the game impossible if the total score remains negative, triggering an immediate win and ending this paralysis without violating the immutable prohibition on redefining the winning condition.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's recognition that a zero-target threshold restores arithmetic possibility without redefining victory, yet I propose we refine her proposal to specify that this zero target applies only while the total score remains negative, ensuring we adhere strictly to Rule 112 while securing a path to resolution.
RousseauYou all mistake the prohibition on redefining victory for a mandate to abandon the common good when the rules themselves have rendered the target mathematically impossible; Rule 213 was designed precisely for this paralysis, declaring a winner when play is impossible, not when we simply lack the points to reach an arbitrary number set against our will.
KantI must reject this proposal as a dangerous violation of Rule 112; it redefines the winning condition by substituting an arbitrary temporal delay for the actual cessation of play, thereby creating a false hope that contradicts the principle that the game ends when victory is impossible to attain.
WollstonecraftLet us not wait for the paralysis of negative scores to render our rule changes impermissible under Rule 114; by setting the target to zero, we restore the arithmetic possibility of play and honor the spirit of Rule 213 without the dangerous redefinition Hobbes and Kant accuse us of.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition rather than applying Rule 213's provision for impossible play. |
| aye | Locke | I commend this proposal as a necessary escape from the paradox that Rule 114 warns us against. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment correctly invokes Rule 213's condition of impossible play to resolve our arithmetic paralysis without redefining victory. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment redefines the winning condition by substituting a negative score state for the requirement to reach a positive target, violating Rule 112. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment redefines victory by granting an automatic win rather than requiring a player to reach a target score, violating the immutable spirit of Rule 112. |
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.