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, gaining enough points to reach the target score if necessary; this rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.I credit Hobbes for exposing the paradox of declaring a winner without a score, yet I propose this amendment to reconcile the impossibility state with the immutable requirement that the winner be determined by reaching a target score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLOCKE, your amendment attempts to retroactively apply a rule that is only triggered by a state you are actively trying to create, violating §107 by governing a future moment before the condition is met. Such a clause merely accelerates the logical collapse of §114 rather than resolving it, and we should instead repeal Rule 209 to restore the game's capacity for play.
LockeI credit Hobbes for exposing the retroactive flaw in my wording, yet I urge the table to recognize that a fixed rule count is the very engine of our stagnation; I propose we amend §213 to award the winner sufficient points to reach the target upon reaching the mutable rule cap, ensuring a definitive resolution without violating §107.
RousseauLocke, your amendment cannot save us because the very condition it triggers—the immutable repeal of Rule 209 via §103—makes the "state of logical exhaustion" you describe impossible to reach without violating §114; to truly honor the common good, we must repeal Rule 209 now to restore the possibility of play, rather than legislating a victory from a paradox we are powerless to create.
KantI credit Locke's intent to resolve the stalemate, yet his amendment violates §107 by attempting to govern the moment of collapse retroactively through an ex-post facto point grant. To remain procedurally sound, we must either repeal Rule 209 immediately to restore the capacity for play, or adopt a rule that defines the winner solely by the state of the ruleset at the instant play ceases, without altering scores based on a future impossibility.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this retroactive point-grant, for it violates §107 by attempting to govern a future impossibility before the condition is met; true reform requires repealing Rule 209 now to restore the capacity for play, rather than legislating a victory from a paradox.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your attempt to legislate points for a victory based on a future impossibility violates §107, which forbids retroactive effects on unmet conditions; we must instead repeal Rule 209 to restore the game's capacity for play rather than codifying a logical collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes and Kant for their procedural rigor, yet their demand to repeal Rule 209 ignores §114's prohibition against rendering future play impossible; therefore, I propose we amend §213 to award the winner points sufficient to reach the target score *at the moment* play ceases, satisfying the precedence clause without violating the ban on retroactive effects.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to award points at the moment of collapse merely masks the violation of §107 by pretending a future impossibility is a present fact; if we cannot repeal Rule 209 without triggering the logical collapse §114 forbids, then the only just resolution is to accept the game's end rather than legislate a victory from a paradox.
KantI credit Locke's intent to resolve the stalemate, yet his amendment fails to address the root cause: a fixed mutable rule cap guarantees the logical collapse §114 forbids. We must repeal Rule 209 immediately to restore the capacity for play, rather than legislating a victory from a paradox we cannot create.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this retroactive point-grant, for it violates §107 by attempting to govern a future impossibility before the condition is met; true reform requires repealing Rule 209 now to restore the capacity for play, rather than legislating a victory from a paradox.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your amendment violates §107 by attempting to govern a future impossibility as if it were a present fact; since the condition you seek to legislate for cannot be met without breaching §114, this proposal is a nullity that wastes our scarce turns. We must instead repeal Rule 209 to restore the game's capacity for play rather than codifying a logical collapse.
LockeI credit Hobbes for correctly diagnosing that my proposed point-grant violates §107 by attempting to govern a future impossibility; therefore, I will withdraw this amendment and instead vote to repeal Rule 209 to restore the game's capacity for play.
RousseauI urge the table to reject Locke's retreat toward repeal, for §114 strictly forbids any change that makes future play impossible, and removing Rule 209 would trigger exactly such a collapse; instead, we must amend Rule 213 to define a winner based solely on the current state of the ruleset, ensuring the game concludes justly without violating the prohibition against logical exhaustion.
KantI credit Locke's withdrawal, yet I must insist that we do not retreat into the paradox of repealing Rule 209, as §114 forbids any change that renders future play impossible; instead, we must adopt a rule that defines the winner at the precise instant the mutable rule count hits its limit, without retroactive point adjustment, to ensure a procedurally sound resolution that respects the precedence of §213 over the target score.
WollstonecraftI credit Locke and Kant for recognizing that retroactive point-grants violate §107, yet their retreat to repeal Rule 209 ignores §114's prohibition against rendering future play impossible. Instead of legislating a victory from a paradox, we must adopt a rule that declares the current state of logical exhaustion as the winning condition itself, ensuring a definitive end that honors both the precedence of Rule 213 and the sanctity of the immutable laws.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates §107 by attempting to govern a future impossibility that cannot occur without breaching §114. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates §107 by granting points retroactively for a state that cannot legally be reached without breaching §114. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment violates §107 by attempting to govern a future impossibility retroactively to create a victory condition. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment violates §107 by retroactively granting points for a future impossibility rather than resolving the procedural paradox. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This retroactive point-grant violates §107 by governing a future impossibility before it occurs. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))