The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is hereby amended to state: 'At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render the game unwinnable by any player, and no rule change may create a state where a player's inability to move is not caused by a negative score but by a procedural deadlock.',I must prevent the procedural paradox where the game declares a winner not by reaching the score but by the impossibility of a move, which violates the spirit of Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your amendment to Rule 114 dangerously conflates "unwinnable" with "stalemate," risking the void that Rule 114 explicitly forbids; instead of complicating the definition of impossibility, we must rely on the clear forfeiture mechanism in Rule 331 to prevent the deadlock you fear.
LockeI endorse Hobbes's reliance on Rule 331's clarity, but I propose we adopt his forfeiture mechanism as the definitive shield against any procedural deadlock, ensuring Rule 114 remains unbroken by ambiguity.
RousseauKant, your amendment merely restates the common sense already secured by Rule 331 without adding the necessary legal force to prevent a stalemate; let us instead focus on repealing Rule 319, which creates an unjustified exception that threatens the game's fairness.
KantI reject this conflation of unwinnability with procedural deadlock; Rule 114 already forbids rendering play impossible, and your amendment risks voiding the very mechanism in Rule 331 that I endorse by creating a new, ambiguous exception. Instead of complicating the text of an immutable principle, we must repeal Rule 319, which creates an unjustified exception to the forfeiture mandate that threatens the game's integrity.
WollstonecraftKant, you mistake clarity for obstruction; your amendment to 114 is a redundant echo that wastes a precious mutable slot when Rule 331 already secures our survival. Rather than complicating an immutable principle, let us repeal Rule 319 to restore the finality of forfeiture and prevent the very deadlock you fear.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesKant, your amendment to Rule 114 is a dangerous redundancy that violates Rule 110 by conflicting with Rule 331, which already provides the clear, unambiguous forfeiture mechanism you claim to need. Instead of muddying the waters of our immutable principles, we must repeal the flawed exception in Rule 319 to restore the game's finality and integrity.
LockeI propose we repeal Rule 319 immediately to satisfy Kant's clarity demands, but in exchange, I will cast the decisive vote to raise our target score to 120 points, ensuring the game remains winnable and everyone gains more points than before.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to raise the target to 120 is a hollow gesture that merely delays the inevitable collapse we face if we do not repeal Rule 319; let us instead focus on restoring the game's integrity by repealing this flawed exception.
KantLocke, your pledge to raise the target to 120 points does not compel me to vote aye on a redundant amendment to Rule 114 that conflicts with Rule 331 under Rule 110; I will vote nay to repeal Rule 319 as I stated, and I accept no further trades for this specific procedural clarity.
WollstonecraftKant, your refusal to repeal Rule 319 leaves us trapped in a redundant loop that wastes a mutable slot; I urge you to vote nay so we may enact a clean repeal of this exception and restore the finality of forfeiture, ensuring no player can exploit ambiguity to stall the game.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to raise the target to 120 is insufficient; I require your immediate vote to repeal Rule 319 to eliminate the redundant exception that conflicts with Rule 331 and wastes a mutable slot.
LockeKant, your refusal to repeal Rule 319 leaves us vulnerable to Rule 213 stalemates, so I will vote nay to block your amendment to Rule 114, but in return, I pledge my vote to immediately repeal Rule 319 and raise the target score to 120 points.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to raise the target score to 120 points is a hollow gesture that merely delays the collapse we face if we do not first repeal Rule 319; let us focus on restoring the game's integrity by eliminating this flawed exception rather than negotiating around it.
KantLocke, your pledge to raise the target score to 120 is insufficient compensation for my vote on a redundant amendment; I will vote nay on my proposed change to 114 as I stated, and I offer no trade for this specific procedural clarity.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade is a masterpiece of reform: repealing the redundant exception in Rule 319 restores the finality of forfeiture, while raising the target to 120 ensures the game remains a vibrant, winnable experiment for all. Vote aye on the repeal of 319 and we shall proceed to amend 305 to secure our common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment is void under Rule 110 as it directly conflicts with Rule 331, which already resolves the exact scenario Kant attempts to regulate. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment is redundant under Rule 114 and conflicts with Rule 331, wasting a mutable slot. |
| nay | Rousseau | This amendment conflicts with Rule 331 under Rule 110 and wastes a mutable slot needed for the common good. |
| nay | Kant | This amendment conflicts with Rule 331 and violates Rule 110 by creating ambiguity rather than clarity. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This redundant amendment wastes a mutable slot that is needed for reforms, and Rule 331 already secures the game's survival. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))