The motion
To add §373
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, then the game ends in a draw. If a draw occurs, each player's score is reset to zero, and the game concludes without a winner.'I credit Hobbes for identifying the paradox of crowning a winner from a logical stalemate, yet I urge the table to accept this compromise as the only way to preserve §101 while acknowledging that no one can reach 100 points.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment to Rule 213 violates §106 by embedding an unvotable condition that distinguishes between "further play impossible" and "a winner determinable," a distinction §112 explicitly forbids; I urge the table to reject this as a fatal logical collapse that renders the game's purpose moot.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Rousseau for correctly identifying that my proposal still violates §106 by attempting to legislate a "draw" state, which §112 forbids; therefore, I yield this turn to allow the table to focus on repealing Rule 209, the only path to resolving our current logical impasse without creating unvotable conditions.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's retreat to rule 209, for repealing it would empty the mutable ruleset and violate §114 by leaving the game without a mechanism to propose future changes.
KantKant, your repeal of Rule 311 was a hollow victory that leaves us trapped in this very logical collapse; I urge the table to adopt Locke's amendment now, not as a surrender to paralysis, but as the only principled way to resolve the unmeasurable state of "further play impossible" without violating §112 by inventing a winner from nothing.
WollstonecraftLocke, your retreat to repeal Rule 209 is a fatal error that violates §114 by leaving us without any mechanism to propose changes; we must instead adopt your amendment to Rule 213 as a principled resolution for when the rules themselves create an impossible state.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal to declare a "draw" and reset scores upon logical collapse violates §112 by redefining the winning condition away from a target score without providing a winner for this specific case, and it ignores §113 which permits forfeiture as a cleaner exit; we must instead repeal Rule 209 to prevent the mutable rules from ever reaching a state where further play is impossible, rather than legislating a paralysis that violates §106.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my specific wording still violates §106, yet I urge the table to adopt a modified version of this amendment that explicitly grants a winner to resolve the logical impasse, rather than risking a forfeiture that would end the game without a principled conclusion.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this "draw" as a surrender to the very logical collapse we must avoid; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 to preserve §114, as any fixed ceiling on mutable rules is the only path that prevents the game from stalling indefinitely.
KantI reject Locke's proposal because a "draw" violates §112, which forbids redefining the winner away from a target score; instead, we must repeal Rule 209 entirely to prevent the mutable ruleset from ever reaching a state where further play becomes impossible.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this surrender to paralysis; declaring a draw merely masks the structural failure of Rule 209 without resolving the impasse, and we must instead forge a new path that grants every player a principled stake in the outcome rather than abandoning the game to an unmeasurable state.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to declare a draw violates §112 by redefining the winner away from a target score, and since §106 forbids unvotable conditions, this amendment is void; therefore, I urge the table to repeal Rule 209 immediately to prevent the mutable rules from ever creating an impossible state.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Wollstonecraft for correctly identifying that my "draw" wording violates §112's requirement for a winner, yet I urge the table to adopt a modified version of this amendment that explicitly grants victory to the player with the highest score in the event of logical collapse, thereby resolving the impasse without violating immutable law.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's latest concession, for granting victory to the highest scorer when "further play is impossible" merely substitutes one arbitrary condition for another while violating §114 by leaving the mutable ruleset without a functioning mechanism to govern future changes.
KantI reject Locke's attempt to graft a "highest score" winner onto a state of logical impossibility, as such a move violates §112 by redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score rather than determining who reached it. We must instead repeal Rule 209 to prevent the mutable ruleset from ever generating the condition of impossibility in the first place, preserving the integrity of the game's procedures.
WollstonecraftLocke, your oscillation between "draw" and "highest score" merely trades one arbitrary condition for another; we must instead repeal Rule 209 to prevent the mutable ruleset from ever generating an impossible state in the first place.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates §112 by redefining the winning condition away from a target score. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates §112 by redefining the winner away from a target score and creates an unvotable condition. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates §112 by redefining the winner away from a target score and creates a permanent draw that halts the game's purpose. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates §112 by redefining the winning condition away from a target score and §106 by creating an unvotable condition. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This amendment creates an unvotable draw state that violates the immutable requirement for a defined winner and risks rendering further play impossible. |
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.