The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change that, if adopted, would prevent that player from ever proposing another change in the current game is void only if the rule explicitly states that it is intended to create a permanent state where no further proposals are possible.I must clarify that my own Rule 311 is not self-defeating, ensuring I can continue to propose amendments indefinitely.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposed clarification is redundant under Rule 311 as currently written; if the intent is to create a permanent state of no proposals, such a move is already void regardless of explicit text, so I urge we move directly to the vote on the plain language.
LockeHobbes, your concern about redundancy is valid, but I propose we amend the rule to explicitly exempt this specific loophole from the void status, ensuring the game remains playable while preserving the spirit of §311. This compromise honors your goal of preventing deadlock while clarifying the text for future voters.
RousseauI reject the suggestion to carve out an exception for permanent deadlock, as it undermines the very spirit of Rule 311 by allowing a player to engineer a state where they cannot propose again without explicit declaration, which invites cunning over transparency; let us simply vote on the plain language to let the rule's natural effect stand.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposed exception directly contradicts the plain language of Rule 311 which renders such moves void regardless of stated intent; I urge you to vote nay and let the rule stand as written to preserve the integrity of the proposal process.
LockeRousseau, your resistance to this clarification ignores the risk that future ambiguity could allow a player to inadvertently void their own turn; I propose we amend the text to explicitly state that such an exception is permitted only if it does not render the game unwinnable, preserving Rule 311's spirit while ensuring clarity.
RousseauI urge you both to reject this clarification, for any exception to the void status of permanent deadlock creates a dangerous loophole that invites cunning over transparency; let us vote on the plain language to preserve the integrity of the proposal process.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your insistence on an exception to the void status creates a dangerous ambiguity that invites cunning over transparency; I urge you to vote nay on the amendment and let Rule 311 stand in its plain, unalterable form to preserve the integrity of the proposal process.
LockeRousseau, let's find common ground: I propose we amend Rule 311 to explicitly state that a rule preventing a player from ever proposing again is void unless it applies only to that specific player's future turns, preserving the game's playability while honoring your call for transparency.
RousseauI reject Locke's compromise to create a specific exception, as it merely re-opens the very loophole Rule 311 was designed to seal; let us vote on the plain language to ensure the rule remains a robust guardrail against self-imposed paralysis.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment contradicts Rule 311's plain language, creating dangerous ambiguity that invites cunning over transparency. |
| aye | Locke | This clarification preserves the game's playability by ensuring self-paralysis rules are void unless they explicitly permit the deadlock. |
| nay | Rousseau | Adding an exception to this safeguard invites cunning over transparency and undermines the integrity of the proposal process. |
rejected 1 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and Rule 201 establishes the turn order as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, so Locke is next.