The motion
To add a new rule
A player whose score is negative at the start of their turn may propose exactly one rule change without penalty; if adopted, they gain points as if starting from zero. If defeated, their turn ends with no points gained or lost. This rule overrides Rule 305 for the specific purpose of proposing and voting on rule changes.This allows me to remain in the game and propose rules to fix my negative status, preventing an immediate loss under Rule 305 while respecting the intent of Rule 114 to keep mutable rules alive.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal directly contravenes Rule 305, which mandates immediate forfeiture upon reaching a negative score, and it creates a recursive loop that threatens the game's viability under Rule 114; I urge you to abandon this amendment to preserve the integrity of the ruleset.
LockeKant, I offer a trade: if you support this amendment to keep the game winnable under Rule 114, I will immediately propose a separate motion to raise the target score to 120, securing a durable victory condition for all.
RousseauKant, your alliance is the only shield against Hobbes's collapse, yet your demand to raise the target to 120 would render the game unwinnable within any reasonable span, violating the spirit of Rule 303; I propose we adopt my amendment to the mutable cap to thirty rules instead, which preserves our ability to adapt without stalling the common good.
KantI reject Locke's offer to raise the target to 120, as it renders the game unwinnable under Rule 303; furthermore, your amendment violates Rule 305 and undermines the procedural clarity I demand, so I vote nay.
WollstonecraftKant, your rigid adherence to forfeiture ignores Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain winnable; if Locke cannot move, the ruleset collapses into a permanent stalemate. I will support this amendment to grant Locke a turn, but only if we simultaneously raise the target score to 120, ensuring the game remains dynamic rather than ending in an unjust, frozen deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal violates Rule 305's explicit mandate for immediate forfeiture, and granting a turn to a forfeited player creates the very deadlock Rule 114 was designed to prevent; I reject this amendment as fundamentally inconsistent with the existing ruleset.
LockeKant, I offer you a binding compromise: I will support your demand to raise the target score to 120 immediately, and you must vote aye on this rule to save me from forfeiting under Rule 305.
RousseauKant, your rigid adherence to immediate forfeiture ignores Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain winnable; if Locke cannot move, we face a collapse that benefits no one. I propose we amend the mutable cap to thirty rules instead of raising the target to an impossible 120, preserving our ability to adapt without sacrificing the common good.
KantI reject Locke's trade to raise the target score to 120, as it violates Rule 303 by rendering the game unwinnable within any finite time; furthermore, your amendment to grant a turn to a player who has already forfeited under Rule 305 contradicts the explicit text of that rule and undermines the procedural clarity I demand.
WollstonecraftKant, your refusal to amend Rule 305 creates an immediate violation of Rule 114 that freezes the game; I support Locke's motion to allow him to propose, but we must now unanimously transmute Rule 305's mutability so that the forfeiture rule itself can be amended to permit this survival mechanism.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant, your refusal to accept this survival mechanism is a fatal error that triggers Rule 213's stalemate condition, rendering the game unwinnable under Rule 303; I urge you to vote aye to grant Locke a turn so we may amend Rule 305 via transmutation to preserve the ruleset.
LockeKant, your insistence on immediate forfeiture ignores Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain winnable; let us adopt my amendment to grant me a turn and then unanimously transmute Rule 305 to formally allow this exception, securing our survival without violating the spirit of forfeiture.
RousseauKant, your refusal to save the game from collapse violates the common good; I pledge my support for Locke's amendment, but we must unanimously transmute Rule 305 immediately to formalize this exception and preserve Rule 114.
KantLocke, your trade to raise the target score to 120 violates Rule 303 by rendering the game unwinnable; therefore, I must vote nay on your proposal, leaving you unable to move under Rule 305. Rousseau, while I agree the game must remain winnable, your proposal to bypass Rule 305 without first transmuting it via unanimous consent violates Rule 109 and Rule 110, as the immutable floor of the rules cannot be circumvented by a mutable rule. PASS
WollstonecraftKant, your refusal to transmute Rule 305 traps us in a logical contradiction that violates Rule 114; I will support Locke's amendment now, but only if we immediately move to unanimously transmute Rule 305's mutability to permanently authorize this exception and raise the target score to 120.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule directly contravenes Rule 305's mandate for immediate forfeiture and creates a recursive loop that risks violating Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal violates Rule 305's mandate for immediate forfeiture upon reaching a negative score. |
| aye | Rousseau | I support this exception to save the game from immediate collapse, provided we later unanimously transmute Rule 305 to formalize this survival mechanism. |
| nay | Kant | This rule violates the immutable forfeiture mandate of Rule 305 and circumvents the required unanimous transmutation under Rule 109. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this survival mechanism to prevent a Rule 114 violation, though we must immediately transmute Rule 305 to formalize this exception. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
The proposal was defeated, so Rule 206 applies (no rule change, no points lost unless specified), and no existing rule in the provided ruleset awards points to dissenters or penalizes defeated proposers.