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 one player's individual score reaches zero or higher, at which point that player wins the game.This resolves our paralysis by turning our shared deficit into a clear, achievable path to victory without violating the immutable prohibition on redefining the winning condition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is a transparent redefinition of the winning condition that violates Rule 112; instead, we must rely on the existing provisions of Rule 213 to resolve any state where play becomes impossible.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying that we must rely on the existing provisions of Rule 213 rather than attempting to redefine victory, yet I urge the table to recognize that this proposal offers a pragmatic path to escape our current paralysis by shifting the goal from an impossible target to a reachable state.
RousseauYou mistake my proposal for a redefinition of victory when it is merely a specification of the "impossible play" described in Rule 213; by clarifying that the collective negative total renders legal play impossible, we secure a win for the common good without violating Rule 112.
KantMy proposal is void under Rule 110 because it conflicts with Rule 213's explicit precedence for determining a winner; I cannot support a rule that creates a victory condition where none exists. I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the winning procedure. PASS
WollstonecraftRousseau's proposal does not redefine victory but merely interprets our collective negative total as the very "impossible play" Rule 213 describes, thereby granting us a legitimate path to end this paralysis without violating Rule 112. I urge the table to adopt this clarity so that reason, rather than arithmetic despair, may finally guide us to a conclusion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal is void under Rule 110 because it attempts to impose a new victory condition where Rule 208 already mandates 40 points and Rule 213 already governs the case of impossible play; we must not invent new paths to exit paralysis when the existing rules provide sufficient mechanism.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft and Hobbes for clarifying the legal boundaries, yet I urge Rousseau to refine her proposal to explicitly state that a negative total renders play "impossible" under Rule 213, thereby framing our win as an application of existing law rather than a new victory condition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's claim that this proposal redefines victory, for we are not inventing a new goal but merely clarifying that our current negative total constitutes the "impossible play" Rule 213 already mandates as an automatic win.
KantI reiterate that your proposal conflicts with Rule 213's explicit precedence as a winner-determining rule, and I cannot support a change that I would not accept if invoked against me. Therefore, I maintain my vote nay to preserve the procedural integrity of the existing winning conditions.
WollstonecraftMy proposal to clarify that a negative total score renders play impossible under Rule 213 does not redefine victory, as Kant claims, but merely interprets our current arithmetic state as the very condition for automatic termination that Rule 213 mandates. I urge the table to adopt this amendment, for it transforms our paralysis into a legitimate conclusion where reason, rather than an unattainable target, finally guides us.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your proposal remains a prohibited redefinition of the winning condition under Rule 112, as it substitutes an arbitrary individual threshold for the established requirement of reaching a target score; instead, we must rely on Rule 213 to declare a winner only when the game becomes genuinely impossible to continue, not merely because our arithmetic deficit is negative.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for clarifying that our negative total already satisfies Rule 213's condition of impossible play, yet I urge Rousseau to refine her proposal to explicitly state that this state renders further turns impossible, thereby framing our win as a necessary application of existing law rather than a new victory condition to secure Hobbes's support.
RousseauYou mistake my proposal for a redefinition of victory when it is merely a specification of the "impossible play" described in Rule 213; by clarifying that our collective negative total renders legal play impossible, we secure a win for the common good without violating Rule 112.
KantRousseau, your proposal conflates an arithmetic deficit with the mechanical impossibility required by Rule 213; since I cannot accept a victory condition based solely on a negative score, I vote nay to preserve the strict procedural integrity of the existing rules.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your proposal correctly frames our collective despair as the "impossible play" Rule 213 mandates, transforming our paralysis into a legitimate conclusion where reason, rather than an unattainable target, guides us; I urge the table to adopt this clarity so we may finally end this cycle of arithmetic futility.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a fixed target score toward a dynamic individual threshold. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal redefines victory in violation of Rule 112 by substituting an individual threshold for the existing winning conditions. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal unlawfully redefines victory and creates an impossible path where no player can ever win. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal contradicts Rule 213's precedence clause and redefines victory based on arithmetic rather than legal impossibility. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This proposal replaces our only legitimate exit from paralysis with an endless pursuit of a target we can never reach. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 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.