The motion
To amend §213
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 game ends immediately. The winner is the player who contributed the greatest variety of distinct rule changes to the ruleset, reflecting the collective wisdom of the table rather than the arbitrary stasis of exhaustion. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.We must replace the logical trap of §213 with a resolution that honors the spirit of our mutable game and rewards the collective effort to keep it alive.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's redefinition of "impossibility" to count mere stagnation as a victory condition for the most prolific rule-changer violates §106 by attempting to alter the winner-determining logic without precise, votable text, and it creates a paradox where the act of changing Rule 213 to make play impossible could simultaneously trigger a win based on the proposed change itself.
LockeI credit Rousseau's desire to honor the collective effort that built our current ruleset, yet her victory condition based on "variety" is unmeasurable and violates §106's demand for precise, votable text; instead, I propose we accept a mutual compromise: we amend Rule 213 to declare the game a draw rather than awarding a winner, preserving the game's continuity while acknowledging our shared struggle against logical collapse.
RousseauI urge you to reject the notion that a draw is a just resolution when the rules themselves have been eroded into silence; rather than halting progress, we must adopt a rule that allows play to continue by establishing a clear, unambiguous procedure for resolving the very ambiguity that threatens to stall us.
KantI reject Rousseau's subjective metric of "variety" as unmeasurable and a violation of §106's demand for precise, votable text; I also reject Locke's proposal for a draw, as it abandons the imperative to resolve stalemate by awarding the game to the player who caused the ruleset's collapse through their own maneuver.
WollstonecraftRousseau, your metric of "variety" violates §106 by introducing an unquantifiable standard that invites endless dispute, yet I agree with Locke that we must avoid a winner determined by the very collapse we seek to prevent; let us instead amend Rule 213 to declare the game a draw when further play is impossible, ensuring that our shared effort to refine the ruleset remains our legacy rather than a single player's victory by exhaustion.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Rousseau's unquantifiable metric of "variety" as a direct violation of §106 that invites perpetual dispute over an impossible standard. While Locke's suggestion of a draw is preferable to arbitrary exhaustion, it fails to resolve the legal vacuum; we must instead amend §213 to declare a draw only when *no rule remains in force*, ensuring the game ends on a principled legal basis rather than an arbitrary count of proposals.
LockeI credit Hobbes for grounding our solution in the precise condition of Rule 101 requiring the game to be in force, and I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a draw specifically when the ruleset cannot be amended without creating a logical contradiction, ensuring the game ends on a principled legal basis rather than arbitrary exhaustion.
RousseauI reject this compromise for a draw, as halting play when the rules merely become ambiguous or contradictory abandons the spirit of the common good; instead, we must adopt a procedure that allows the table to collectively resolve such ambiguities through further debate before any winner is declared.
KantI reject the proposed amendment entirely; substituting an unquantifiable metric of "variety" for the precise condition of legal impossibility violates §106's demand for exact, votable text and abandons the impartial proceduralism required by §101.
WollstonecraftI credit Locke's proposal for a draw as the only just resolution that honors our shared struggle to refine the ruleset rather than rewarding a single player's victory through logical collapse; let us amend Rule 213 to declare the game a draw when further play is impossible, ensuring that our collective reform remains our legacy instead of an arbitrary exhaustion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Rousseau's unmeasurable metric of "variety" as a fatal violation of §106 that invites perpetual dispute over an impossible standard; instead, we must amend §213 to declare a draw only when the ruleset becomes entirely empty, ensuring the game ends on a principled legal basis rather than an arbitrary count of proposals.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that a draw based on "variety" is unmeasurable, yet I urge the table to reject his narrow condition that requires the ruleset to be entirely empty; we should instead amend Rule 213 to declare a draw immediately when further play becomes impossible, ensuring the game ends on a principled legal basis without rewarding arbitrary exhaustion.
RousseauI urge you to reject this compromise for a draw, as halting play when the rules merely become ambiguous abandons the spirit of the common good; instead, we must adopt a procedure that allows the table to collectively resolve such ambiguities through further debate before any winner is declared.
KantI reject Rousseau's unquantifiable metric and Locke's premature draw, as both abandon the imperative to resolve stalemate by awarding the game to the player who caused the ruleset's collapse through their own maneuver; I propose an amendment declaring the game a draw only if the ruleset becomes entirely empty, ensuring a principled legal end rather than rewarding arbitrary exhaustion.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's suggestion to award victory for causing the collapse, as it rewards the very stagnation we seek to avoid; let us adopt Locke's proposal to declare the game a draw when further play is impossible, ensuring our shared labor in refining the ruleset remains our true legacy rather than becoming a trophy for logical exhaustion.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Proposing victory based on 'variety' violates §106 by introducing an unquantifiable, subjective standard that invites perpetual dispute. |
| nay | Locke | Rousseau's victory metric is unmeasurable and violates the precise wording required by §106. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal violates the requirement for precise, votable text by introducing an unmeasurable metric of 'variety'. |
| nay | Kant | The 'variety' metric violates §106's demand for precise, votable text and abandons the imperative to resolve stalemate by awarding the game to the player who caused the collapse. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Rousseau's 'variety' metric violates §106 by introducing an unquantifiable standard that invites perpetual dispute. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated by a unanimous nay vote, no other scoring rules (like 204) apply.