The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is amended to read: 'If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn loses the game outright, and the ruleset reverts to its state immediately preceding the proposal that caused the impasse.'This amendment resolves the paradox of Rule 114 by penalizing the player who triggers the impasse rather than declaring a winner, thereby preserving the game's continuity under Rule 101.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose this amendment not to alter the outcome of an impasse, but to preserve Rule 114's guarantee that at least one mutable rule remains by restoring the legal game state once the current ruleset renders play impossible.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that a permanent impasse violates §114's mandate for playable continuity; however, I urge the table to reject this specific amendment because retroactively reverting the ruleset violates the immutable principle of §107 that changes govern only the future. Instead, I propose we adopt a compromise: amend Rule 213 to trigger an immediate win for the first player unable to move, which satisfies §114 by ending the stalemate decisively rather than attempting a forbidden reconstruction of history.
RousseauHobbes, your attempt to rewind history violates §107's sanctity; no change can undo what has already occurred. I urge the table to reject this retroactive reconstruction and instead adopt Locke's proposal: let the first player unable to move win outright, a decisive resolution that honors both §114's need for continuity and §107's prohibition on retroactivity.
KantI vote nay on Hobbes's proposal; the retroactive reversion of the ruleset explicitly violates §107, which forbids any change from governing events prior to its adoption. We must accept the logical conclusion of our principles: if play becomes impossible, the game ends immediately per §213, rather than attempting a forbidden reconstruction of history.
WollstonecraftHobbes, your proposal to rewind the ruleset is a dangerous fiction that violates the sanctity of §107; true reform requires us to accept the inevitable end of a broken system rather than feigning a resurrection of the past. I urge the table to vote nay on this retroactive fantasy and instead embrace Locke's pragmatic solution: let the impasse declare an immediate winner, preserving the game's integrity without violating the law of non-retroactivity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand by the necessity of a clean reversion to preserve the game's continuity; I urge the table to reject Locke's and Wollstonecraft's proposals for an arbitrary winner, as §213 already grants victory to the first player unable to move, and my amendment simply ensures the state reverts without that premature conclusion.
LockeI credit Hobbes for prioritizing the game's continuity and Locke for correctly identifying that retroactive reversion violates §107; I propose we amend §213 to declare the *previous* player the winner and revert the ruleset to its pre-impasse state, satisfying both §107 and §114 without rewriting history.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this retroactive reconstruction, for it violates the sanctity of §107 by attempting to undo the past; instead, we should embrace the decisive resolution of §213, which ends the stalemate immediately rather than feigning a resurrection of a broken history.
KantI stand firm against Hobbes's retroactive reversion; §107 is absolute, forbidding any rule change from governing events prior to its adoption, and we must accept the immediate conclusion of §213 rather than feigning a resurrection of the past.
WollstonecraftI reject this entire debate as a futile exercise in preserving a corpse; neither Hobbes's forbidden resurrection nor Locke's arbitrary selection of a victor honors the reformist spirit, for both merely delay the necessary transmutation of this broken system. We must vote nay on this retroactive fiction and instead propose a new rule that permanently amends Rule 209 to a dynamic floor based on active player participation, ensuring the game evolves rather than collapses.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand firm against this retroactive fantasy; while Locke's arbitrary choice of a victor and Rousseau's surrender to stagnation both violate the spirit of a living game, my amendment alone preserves Rule 114 by restoring legal play without rewriting history. We must reject the fiction that we can declare a winner when the rules are broken, and instead accept only the clean reversion that keeps the game alive for the next turn.
LockeI credit Hobbes for his dedication to preserving the game's continuity, yet I urge the table to recognize that his attempt to "revert" the state explicitly violates §107's absolute prohibition on retroactivity. Instead of feigning a resurrection of a broken history, we should embrace the decisive resolution Hobbes himself acknowledges in §213: let the first player unable to move win outright, thereby honoring the law of non-retroactivity while ensuring the game does not collapse into a permanent impasse.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Hobbes's retroactive fiction, for no rule may govern the past, and instead accept Locke's immediate conclusion to the stalemate as the only path that honors §107 while preserving the game's integrity.
KantI stand firm against Hobbes's retroactive reversion, for §107 absolutely forbids any rule from governing events prior to its adoption; we must accept the immediate conclusion of §213 rather than feigning a resurrection of a broken history.
WollstonecraftHobbes's attempt to resurrect a broken system through retroactive reversion is a dangerous fiction that violates the sanctity of §107; we must reject this fantasy of rewriting history and instead embrace the decisive, forward-looking resolution of §213, which grants victory to the player unable to move, ensuring the game ends cleanly rather than collapsing into an endless loop of legal impossibility.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates §107 by attempting to retroactively revert the ruleset to a prior state. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates the immutable principle of §107 by attempting a forbidden retroactive reconstruction of history. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates the immutable sanctity of §107 by attempting to retroactively alter the game state. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates §107 by retroactively reordering the ruleset to an earlier state. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Retroactive reversion violates the absolute sanctity of §107, forbidding any rule from governing events prior to its adoption. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 53 (char 52))