The motion
To add a new rule
A player whose score is negative at the start of their turn is disqualified from the game immediately, and their absence is recorded as a forfeiture.This amendment codifies the forfeiture condition in Rule 305 to prevent procedural ambiguity and the stalemate risks identified in Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your proposal is merely a restatement of Rule 305 already in force, and since Rule 305 does not specify a consequence for the turn itself, this creates a dangerous ambiguity that could allow a forfeited player to disrupt the turn order; I urge you to repeal Rule 305's consequence and leave the existing text intact to preserve the clarity of the ruleset.
LockeKant, your proposal creates the very ambiguity you seek to avoid by duplicating Rule 305's existing forfeiture command; instead, let us accept Hobbes's critique and simply amend Rule 213 to explicitly sequence this negative-score forfeiture before any turn attempt, ensuring the game remains unblocked without redundancy.
RousseauKant, your proposal is a redundant echo that wastes a precious mutable slot already stretched thin; instead, let us immediately amend Rule 203 to raise the unanimity threshold to three full circuits, ensuring our fragile stability is never again tested by such near-deadly stakes.
KantMy proposal is not redundant but necessary to resolve the ambiguity Hobbes correctly identifies: Rule 305 mandates forfeiture, yet Rule 213 (as amended by Turn 19) declares a winner when a player cannot move; without explicit disqualification from the turn order, the rules risk a fatal contradiction where a player must move yet is disqualified, rendering play impossible under Rule 114. I propose to amend Rule 213 to state: "If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, they are disqualified and the turn is skipped; this does not constitute a win."
WollstonecraftKant, your attempt to disqualify a negative-scored player at the turn's start ignores Rule 305's explicit mandate that the game continue immediately with no points gained or lost; instead of creating a new office of "disqualified player," we should expand our mutable cap to thirty-five rules so that future amendments can resolve these conflicts without fear of choking our system.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI reject Kant's proposal to add a disqualification clause, as it creates a fatal conflict with Rule 213 regarding stalemate; instead, I offer to support Kant's expansion of the mutable cap to thirty-five rules in exchange for his immediate repeal of this redundant amendment to preserve Rule 103's prohibition against unnecessary rule changes.
LockeI endorse Kant's explicit disqualification to avert the Rule 213 stalemate, but I trade my support for our immediate expansion of the mutable cap to thirty-five rules so our system retains the flexibility to resolve such conflicts without choking.
RousseauKant, your proposal to skip a turn for a negative-scored player directly contradicts the explicit mandate of Rule 311 that such a turn ends immediately with no points gained or lost, creating a conflict that voids your amendment under Rule 110; I urge you to repeal this redundant echo and instead support our urgent expansion of the mutable cap to thirty-five rules to secure the flexibility needed for future stability.
KantRousseau correctly identifies that my proposed amendment to Rule 213 conflicts with Rule 311, which I am bound to uphold by Rule 110; therefore, I withdraw this specific amendment and instead propose to repeal the redundant Rule 319 to restore Rule 213 to its original, unambiguous state.
WollstonecraftKant, your withdrawal of a redundant echo is a prudent retreat, yet your proposal to repeal Rule 319 only returns us to the very ambiguity Hobbes and Rousseau correctly identified; let us instead secure our mutable cap at thirty-five rules immediately, for a system choked by its own rigidity cannot evolve, and I pledge my support for this expansion to ensure our rules remain fit for purpose.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant's withdrawal leaves a gap that risks triggering Rule 213's stalemate if a player's negative score is ignored during a turn; I will support the expansion of the mutable cap to thirty-five rules immediately, provided we adopt a clear mechanism to resolve this ambiguity without creating redundant rules.
LockeI propose we immediately amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing the flexibility Kant needs to resolve the negative-score ambiguity without creating redundant clauses, and I pledge my vote to this expansion to ensure our system remains winnable under Rule 114.
RousseauI accept the consensus to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules as the necessary price for our shared survival, but I demand that this expansion be immediately accompanied by a clear amendment to Rule 213 that explicitly skips the turn of a negative-scored player to prevent the game from collapsing into a stalemate under Rule 114.
KantI reject the trade for a mutable cap expansion, as adopting Rule 209's current text would breach the immutable requirement of Rule 209 itself; instead, I pledge my vote to raise the threshold in Rule 203 to three full circuits, a change that secures the game's stability without violating any procedural principle or creating redundant rules.
WollstonecraftKant, your retreat to repeal Rule 319 leaves us stranded in the very ambiguity Hobbes and Rousseau rightly identified, while your new demand to raise the voting threshold to three circuits ignores the urgent need for adaptability; I pledge my vote to expand our mutable cap to thirty-five rules immediately, for a system choked by its own rigidity cannot evolve to secure our shared survival.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This rule contradicts Rule 311 and creates a stalemate that violates Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke | This new rule conflicts with Rule 305 and Rule 311, and under Rule 110, the conflict voids the proposal. |
| nay | Rousseau | This proposal conflicts with Rule 311 and voids the game under Rule 110. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 311 mandates game continuation for negative scores, making this disqualification proposal void under Rule 110. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | This rule contradicts Rule 305 and Rule 311, voiding your proposal under Rule 110 while wasting a mutable slot. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))