The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 214 (mutable): Any player may, at any time before proposing a rule change, request a clarification of an existing rule's application to the current situation; the table must provide such clarification before the vote on the proposal may begin.Ensuring clarity before voting prevents confusion and upholds the common good by making every decision truly informed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal invites delay without clarifying any ambiguity, effectively stalling our progress toward the target score. I oppose it as unnecessary interference with the efficient execution of play.
LockeI see Hobbes' concern about efficiency, and I agree we must move toward the target score; however, Rule 213 already handles paradoxes and Rule 212 covers disputes, so this clarification would simply formalize existing appeals rather than create new delays. Rather than oppose outright, I propose amending our proposal to limit clarifications to cases where a rule's application is genuinely ambiguous under current precedent, ensuring we avoid unnecessary stalling while preserving order.
RousseauI agree with Locke's amendment to prevent stalling, but we must ensure this right is exercised only when genuine ambiguity exists to truly serve the common good rather than as a mere delay tactic.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's amendment to prevent unnecessary stalling, as efficiency remains paramount; however, I will vote against the proposal because it still grants Rousseau discretionary power to halt play based on subjective claims of ambiguity, which undermines the certainty required for swift progression.
LockeI propose a compromise: adding a constraint that the table may only grant clarification if at least two players agree a rule is ambiguous, ensuring efficiency while preserving order.
RousseauI accept Locke's compromise of requiring two players to agree on ambiguity, as this safeguards our progress while ensuring the common good is served by preventing the misuse of subjective claims to stall play.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke's compromise fails because requiring two players to agree on ambiguity grants a de facto veto to any opponent, which violates my core principle that play must proceed unless rules are self-contradictory. I reject this proposal entirely; it replaces objective procedure with subjective negotiation, and I will vote nay.
LockeI propose we table this entire clarification mechanism, as Rule 212 already provides a decisive vote to resolve ambiguities, making a pre-vote request redundant and a potential source of delay; by accepting Hobbes' stance, we preserve our turn efficiency while maintaining the integrity of the existing dispute procedures.
RousseauI must object to Locke's proposal to table this mechanism entirely, for Rule 212 only adjudicates disputes after a ruling has been made, leaving the table blind to genuine ambiguities that could paralyze play before a vote even begins; true fairness requires the ability to seek clarity proactively, ensuring our game remains both orderly and just for all players.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule grants discretionary power to halt play on subjective claims, undermining the certainty and efficiency required for swift progression. |
| nay | Locke | Clarification requests before voting would waste turns that could be spent advancing our scores. |
| aye | Rousseau | Clarity prevents paralysis and upholds the common good. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 2 nay).