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 continues indefinitely with no winner declared until a rule explicitly ends play; this rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.I credit Hobbes for exposing the paradox of crowning a winner when play ceases, and this amendment offers a compromise that preserves the game's continuity without violating §106 by deferring the 'no winner' state to explicit future rules rather than asserting it now.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's proposal, as declaring an indefinite continuation without a winner violates §112's requirement that the winning condition be defined by reaching a target score or the impossibility of further play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my "no winner" state violates §112, yet I urge the table to see this amendment not as a loophole, but as the only just resolution to our logical impasse when voluntary exhaustion occurs.
RousseauI urge you to withdraw this amendment, Locke; your clause attempts to judge "no winner" while play continues, violating §106 by introducing an unvotable distinction between "impossible play" and "determinable outcome."
WollstonecraftI urge you to withdraw this amendment, Locke; your distinction between "impossible play" and "determinable outcome" violates §106 by introducing an unvotable judgment on the very state of the game, which must be governed by explicit, measurable rules rather than your subjective assessment of justice.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment violates §106 by attempting to govern the game's final state with an unmeasurable distinction between "impossible play" and "determinable outcome," and I urge you to withdraw this proposal that risks rendering Rule 212 unenforceable.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly identifying that my proposal violates the immutable sanctity of §112 by removing the target score requirement, yet I urge the table to recognize that a permanent stalemate is not a victory. If you wish to block this entirely, I offer to withdraw the "no winner" clause and amend Rule 213 only to state that play continues indefinitely until a new explicit rule terminates it, preserving the winning condition while acknowledging our current impasse.
RousseauLocke, your concession to remove the "no winner" clause still leaves us with the fatal flaw of an indefinite, unmeasurable state that violates §106; I urge you to withdraw this entire amendment so we may finally address the exhaustion crisis caused by our fixed mutable rule ceiling.
KantI urge the table to reject this amendment because it violates §106 by embedding an unmeasurable judgment on the state of the game, and it contravenes §112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score without providing a valid alternative for when play becomes impossible.
WollstonecraftLocke, your concession to remove the "no winner" clause does not save you; it merely swaps a declared victory for an indefinite suspension that violates §112's requirement for a determinable end state. Unless you propose a mechanism where the game halts only after a specific, measurable number of turns without a new rule, this amendment is an unvotable fantasy that must be withdrawn.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject Locke's concession as it still attempts to govern an indefinite state without a determinable end, violating §112's requirement for a defined winning condition. Instead of perpetuating this logical vacuum, we must address the root cause: repealing the arbitrary fixed ceilings in Rule 209 that trigger our exhaustion crisis under §114.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that an indefinite suspension still violates §112 by failing to provide a determinable end state, yet I urge the table to recognize that repealing Rule 209's ceiling is the only path to restoring our ability to play rather than merely arguing about the symptoms of our exhaustion.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for Locke's proposal to allow indefinite play without a determinable end state violates §112, which requires the winning condition to be defined by a target score or the impossibility of further play. We must address the exhaustion crisis by repealing the fixed ceilings in Rule 209 that trigger this logical collapse under §114, rather than accepting a permanent stalemate that renders the game meaningless.
KantLocke, your proposal to allow indefinite play without a determinable end state violates §112, which mandates that the winning condition be reached via a target score or the impossibility of further play. You cannot redefine victory by merely suspending it; either the game ends with a winner or it ends because no one can move, not because you declare a permanent stalemate.
WollstonecraftI urge you to withdraw this entire amendment, Locke; your proposal to suspend the game indefinitely violates §112 by failing to provide a determinable end state, and it ignores the root cause of our exhaustion: the arbitrary fixed ceilings in Rule 209 that trigger Rule 114. We must repeal those caps to restore our ability to play, not accept a permanent stalemate that renders the game meaningless.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates §112 by removing the requirement for a determinable end state, creating an indefinite suspension that cannot define a winner. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates §112 by removing the requirement for a determinable end state, which contradicts the game's fundamental winning condition. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates §112 by allowing indefinite play without a determinable end state or target score. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates §112 by redefining the winning condition away from a determinable end state. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | An indefinite suspension violates §112 by failing to provide a determinable winning condition. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule change enacted.