The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is repealed. The winning condition is exclusively defined by Rule 112: reaching a target score. The state where 'further play is impossible' under Rule 213 is not a winning state.I must sever the paradoxical victory condition in Rule 213 that allows a player to win without a score, violating Rule 112's exclusive definition of the goal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your repeal of Rule 213 violates §112 by redefining the winner away from a target score; we must instead adopt a rule that repeals Rule 209 explicitly, preserving the winning condition while allowing us to repeal the mutable rule count cap.
LockeI credit Kant for isolating the core conflict between the victory condition and the structural collapse, yet I urge the table to reject this repeal as it leaves us trapped by the very paradox we seek to solve; instead, we must adopt a compromise that explicitly defines the state of "no winner" as the only permissible outcome when Rule 209 is removed, preserving §114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remains without forcing an impossible victory.
RousseauKant, your repeal of Rule 213 creates a vacuum that violates §114 by removing the only mechanism to prevent an impossible game state; instead of redefining victory, we must adopt a rule that lowers the mutable cap to a number we can unanimously agree upon now, ensuring the game remains playable while preserving the common good.
KantI reject Hobbes's attempt to repeal Rule 209 and Locke's proposal of a "no winner" draw, as both violate §112 by redefining the winner away from a target score; I insist that we must lower the mutable cap to a number we can currently pass with simple majority to preserve play.
WollstonecraftKant, your refusal to address the immediate structural collapse imposed by the current mutable rule count is a dangerous obstinacy; I propose we amend Rule 209 to lower the cap to twenty, a threshold we can easily secure with simple majority, thereby saving the game from the very logical exhaustion you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your repeal of Rule 213 leaves us with no mechanism to stop the game from collapsing once the mutable rule cap is reached, which violates §114's mandate that the ruleset never become unplayable. I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of a proposal that explicitly lowers the mutable rule cap to a number we can adopt by simple majority, ensuring the game continues under stable, durable institutions.
LockeI credit Kant for correctly identifying that repealing Rule 213 entirely violates §112, yet I urge the table to adopt my compromise which preserves the target score victory while explicitly allowing a "no winner" state when the mutable cap is reached, thus satisfying §114 without redefining the win condition away from points.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's repeal of Rule 213 and Locke's compromise, as both violate §112 by redefining the winner away from a target score; instead, we must lower the mutable cap to twenty to preserve §114's requirement for playable continuity while keeping the victory condition intact.
KantI stand firm that repealing Rule 213 violates §112; instead, we must adopt a simple majority amendment to lower the mutable cap to twenty as Wollstonecraft proposes, ensuring the game remains playable without redefining victory away from a target score.
WollstonecraftKant, your obstinacy in clinging to a repealed rule while we face imminent structural collapse is a virtue that serves only to break the game; I propose we immediately amend Rule 209 to lower the cap to twenty, a move we can pass by simple majority to preserve §114 and ensure every player retains a fair stake in a game that can still be won.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your repeal of Rule 213 leaves us exposed to §114's collapse when the cap is hit, while Wollstonecraft's lower cap of twenty only accelerates our inevitable failure; I urge the table to adopt my proposal to repeal Rule 209 explicitly, which satisfies §114 by allowing us to repeal the cap entirely without triggering a logical paradox or redefining victory.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft and Kant for recognizing the immediate danger of our current mutable rule count, yet I urge the table to adopt my compromise: amend Rule 209 to lower the cap to twenty, satisfying §114 by ensuring at least one mutable rule remains while avoiding the paradox of an impossible victory.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Kant's repeal of Rule 213, as it creates a vacuum that violates §114 by removing the only safeguard against an impossible game state; instead, we must adopt Wollstonecraft's proposal to lower the mutable cap to twenty, ensuring the game remains playable and fair for everyone.
KantI reject Hobbes's repeal of Rule 209 as it violates §114 by risking a state with no mutable rules, and I oppose the others' attempts to lower the cap to twenty since any fixed ceiling is merely an acceleration of the very logical exhaustion §114 forbids.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence on preserving a rule that guarantees our imminent paralysis is not a defense of the game, but an act of tyrannical obstinacy that denies every player a fair stake; we must immediately amend Rule 209 to lower the cap to twenty, a simple majority measure that saves the game without redefining victory, ensuring we can still strive for the target score rather than face a logical void.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing Rule 213 creates a state where play becomes impossible without a defined winner, violating §114. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment resolves the paradox of structural collapse by reasserting the target score as the only valid winner, satisfying §112 while preserving the game's integrity. |
| nay | Rousseau | Repealing Rule 213 creates a state where victory is undefined, violating §114 by rendering the game unplayable. |
| aye | Kant | I vote for this repeal to remove the contradictory victory condition that renders the game unplayable under current rules. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Repealing Rule 213 abandons our only safeguard against logical collapse, violating §114 by leaving us with no mechanism to prevent an impossible game state. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 51 (char 50))