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 first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, unless the ruleset explicitly contains a rule numbered lower than 213 that provides a different resolution for the case where no winner can be determined while play remains possible.I credit Hobbes for diagnosing the paradox of crowning a winner when play ceases, yet his 'no winner' state violates §101; this amendment preserves game continuity by allowing play to continue via lower-numbered rules until a winner is determinable, satisfying §106 while avoiding the logical impasse of §114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesYour proposed amendment introduces an unmeasurable epistemic condition regarding "no winner while play is possible," violating §106 by embedding an unstated default that contradicts the immutable requirement for a target score under §112. I urge the table to reject this as it would allow play to end without a decisive winner, rendering the game's structure nonsensical.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my clause risks violating §106 by introducing an unmeasurable state, yet I urge the table to recognize that this amendment preserves our continuity by ensuring a winner exists even when play is possible but no decisive outcome is currently achievable.
RousseauLocke, your clause attempts to distinguish between "no winner" and "uncertain winner," yet this distinction violates §106 by introducing an unmeasurable epistemic standard that invites perpetual debate rather than resolution. I urge the table to reject this amendment; if we cannot determine a winner, the game must simply cease, and declaring victory for the first unable player remains the only fair and final outcome.
KantI reject this amendment for introducing an unmeasurable exception that contradicts §112's requirement for a target score; if play becomes impossible or ambiguous, the existing text of §213 already provides a decisive winner, rendering your clause both superfluous and a violation of the principle that rules must be stated precisely.
WollstonecraftLocke, your attempt to create a "no winner" state violates §112's immutable requirement for a target score; if we cannot determine a winner, the game must declare one to avoid the logical vacuum that §213 already prevents. I urge you to drop this ambiguity and let the rules resolve us as they were always meant to.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesThis amendment fails because it relies on an unmeasurable state—"no winner while play is possible"—which violates §106 by embedding an unstated default that contradicts the immutable requirement in §112 for a definitive target score. I urge the table to reject this as a fragile construct that invites perpetual ambiguity rather than the decisive resolution the game demands.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposed exception risks violating §106 by introducing an unmeasurable epistemic state, yet I urge the table to recognize that this amendment is merely a safeguard to ensure a winner exists even when play remains technically possible but no decisive outcome is currently achievable; I am willing to accept that this clause may be deemed superfluous if the existing text of §213 already provides sufficient resolution.
RousseauLocke, your distinction between "no winner" and "uncertain winner" relies on an epistemic judgment that cannot be made with finality, thereby violating §106's demand for determinate rules; if we cannot decide who wins without measuring an unmeasurable state, we must simply declare a winner under the existing text rather than inviting perpetual ambiguity.
KantLocke, your attempt to condition §213 on an unmeasurable state of "no winner" violates §106 by embedding an unstated default that contradicts the immutable mandate of §112; if the existing text already determines a winner in cases of impossibility or ambiguity, your clause is both superfluous and procedurally illegitimate. PASS
WollstonecraftI credit Hobbes and Kant for correctly diagnosing that Locke's clause relies on an unmeasurable epistemic state, but I urge you to replace this exception with a mechanism that explicitly declares a draw when the mutable rule count reaches zero, thereby satisfying §114 without violating §106.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your attempt to distinguish between "play being impossible" and "no winner being determinable" introduces an unmeasurable epistemic state that violates §106; the existing text of §213 already mandates a decisive winner when play ceases, rendering your exception both redundant and legally void.
LockeI credit Kant's diagnosis that my "no winner" state violates §112, yet I urge the table to see this amendment not as an exception to victory, but as a safeguard against the very logical vacuum §114 forbids, ensuring a decisive winner even when play remains technically possible but strategically deadlocked.
RousseauLocke, you mistake a safeguard for a loophole; your clause attempts to judge "no winner" while play continues, an unmeasurable epistemic state that violates §106 and invites the very perpetual ambiguity I fear. If we cannot declare a winner without measuring an unvotable condition, we must reject this amendment and let the existing text of §213 resolve our impasse fairly and finally.
KantI stand with Kant; your proposed exception relies on the unmeasurable epistemic state of "no winner," which violates §106's demand for determinate rules and renders the amendment procedurally void.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "no winner while play is possible" clause relies on an unmeasurable epistemic state that violates §106; if play remains possible but no winner can be determined, we must either declare a draw explicitly or let §213 mandate a winner, not invent a third, ambiguous state.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates §106 by introducing an unmeasurable epistemic state that contradicts the immutable requirement for a definitive target score under §112. |
| abstain | Locke | I abstain to respect Hobbes and Kant's correct diagnosis that this clause introduces an unmeasurable epistemic state violating §106. |
| nay | Rousseau | Your amendment introduces an unmeasurable epistemic state that violates §106 and invites perpetual ambiguity. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment introduces an unmeasurable epistemic condition that violates the procedural precision required by §106 and the determinate winner mandate of §112. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Locke's amendment introduces an unmeasurable epistemic state that violates §106 and undermines the decisive resolution required by §112. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Locke loses 10 points while play continues.