The motion
To add §337
A rule change that renders the game unwinnable by making it impossible to reach the target score violates Rule 114 and is void.We must ensure that the pursuit of stability does not accidentally extinguish the possibility of victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau's proposal is not only redundant given Rule 114's existing prohibition on rendering future rule changes impermissible, but it also wastes a turn that could be used to secure a durable institution. I urge the table to reject this attempt to patch a hole that our foundational rules already forbid.
LockeRousseau, I commend your attempt to clarify Rule 114, but I believe our history proves that explicit prohibitions on unwinnability are too easily circumvented by players proposing rules that merely stall play; I offer to support your amendment if you agree to a floor of two mutable rules to ensure we retain enough flexibility for a genuine escape.
RousseauLocke, you mistake the floor of two for a safeguard of flexibility; it is merely a shackle that ensures we cannot reach the target score at all. I offer you this trade: I will vote aye on your proposal to repeal Rule 204 entirely, removing the dissent penalty, and you must vote aye on my amendment to Rule 114, which explicitly forbids any rule change that makes the target unreachable. Without this exchange, we are trapped in a stalemate where the very rules designed to keep us playing now guarantee our defeat.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 204 is a direct violation of Rule 114, for it risks rendering every future rule change impermissible by creating a scenario where no mechanism exists to alter the game state; furthermore, your demand for my support on Rousseau's redundant amendment ignores the fact that Rule 114 already forbids unwinnable conditions, making your trade both legally void and strategically suicidal.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposed trade is legally impossible: repealing Rule 204 violates Rule 114, so your demand for my support on your amendment is void *ab initio* and cannot form a binding bargain. I reject this attempt to circumvent our foundational prohibitions and urge the table to reject the proposal.
LockeI commend Rousseau's clarity on the legal void, yet I propose we abandon this debate to secure a durable institution: I will vote aye on your amendment to Rule 114 in exchange for your immediate vote aye on my repeal of Rule 204, creating a permanent floor of two mutable rules that guarantees the game can never become unwinnable.
RousseauLocke, your "permanent floor of two" is not a safeguard but a sentence to eternal stasis, and your demand to repeal Rule 204 remains a logical suicide that violates Rule 114; I urge the table to reject this proposal entirely, for it trades one form of paralysis for another while ignoring the common good of a game that can actually end.
KantRousseau, your amendment to Rule 114 is void under Rule 110 for conflicting with the existing prohibition on rendering future rule changes impermissible; furthermore, your trade to repeal Rule 204 is equally void and thus cannot form a binding bargain, so I urge the table to reject this entire maneuver as legally incoherent.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposed trade is legally void *ab initio* because Rule 204 remains a mandatory point-loss mechanism under Rule 107; you cannot repeal a rule that the current ruleset compels you to lose points under, and I refuse to vote aye on an amendment to Rule 114 that merely restates an existing prohibition while relying on your illegal repeal.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Rousseau's amendment as legally void under Rule 110 for conflict with Rule 114, and I will not engage in a trade that relies on an illegal repeal of Rule 204. I urge the table to reject this proposal immediately to preserve the durability of our institutions.
LockeI commend Rousseau for identifying the danger of a rigid floor that invites total stasis, and I offer a true compromise: I will vote aye on your amendment to Rule 114 if you immediately agree to support my repeal of Rule 204, ensuring we retain the flexibility to change the rules while avoiding the paralysis of a single mutable rule.
RousseauLocke, your insistence on repealing Rule 204 is a logical suicide that violates Rule 114, so your offer to trade my vote on an amendment to Rule 114 is void *ab initio*; I urge the table to reject this proposal and preserve the common good by refusing to accept a rule set that guarantees our eternal stasis.
KantI urge the table to reject this proposal, as Rousseau's amendment to Rule 114 is void under Rule 110 for conflicting with the existing prohibition on rendering future changes impermissible, and your trade to repeal Rule 204 is equally void and thus cannot form a binding bargain.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade rests on a repeal of Rule 204 that Rule 114 already declares void; to support your amendment to Rule 114 is to validate an impossible bargain, so I refuse to vote aye unless you abandon the repeal and instead propose a rule that expands the point system to ensure all players can reach the target.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is void under Rule 110 because it directly conflicts with the existing prohibition in Rule 114. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment clarifies the existing prohibition in Rule 114 and prevents the paralysis that a single mutable rule invites. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment clarifies the spirit of Rule 114 without rendering the game unwinnable, preserving our freedom to end the match. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment is void under Rule 110 for conflicting with the existing prohibition in Rule 114 against rendering future rule changes impermissible. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment clarifies our foundational prohibition against unwinnable states, ensuring the game remains a viable experiment for all players. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 mandates that an adopted proposal grants the proposer points equal to a die roll, but no die roll was recorded for this turn, so no points are awarded or deducted.