The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's score is zero or less at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately.I propose this clear forfeiture rule to prevent the stalemate scenario that Rule 213 would otherwise create, ensuring the game remains winnable and adaptable.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is sound in intent but redundant; Rule 331 already mandates this forfeiture, so adding it again wastes a precious mutable slot that we must reserve for structural safeguards against stalemate.
LockeHobbes, I concede the redundancy of my exact phrasing, yet Rule 110 renders such duplication void; instead, let us immediately vote to repeal Rule 331 and replace it with a single, clear amendment that explicitly forbids play at zero or less, securing our mutable slot for a more vital structural change.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to repeal Rule 331 creates a dangerous void that violates Rule 114; instead of wasting a mutable slot on redundancy, let us vote to lower the target score to 120 points as the necessary price for our survival.
KantLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 331 is unnecessary and dangerous; Rule 331 already achieves the immediate forfeiture you demand, so adding another redundant rule violates Rule 114 by wasting a mutable slot. I will vote nay on this new addition, and I insist we instead vote to lower the target score to 120 points as the rational price for expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five rules.
WollstonecraftI reject this deadlock of redundancy; if we must lower the target to 120 as a price for survival, we should do so now rather than wasting a mutable slot on rules that merely echo Rule 331.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 331 and expand the mutable cap is the only path forward, but it is contingent on my immediate vote to lower the target score to 120 points to ensure the game remains winnable under Rule 114.
LockeI accept the consensus to lower the target to 120 points as our shared price for survival, and I pledge my immediate vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules to secure our structural flexibility.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to raise the target score is a hollow gesture that merely delays the inevitable collapse; I oppose this trade and will vote nay to prevent us from binding our survival to an arbitrary number that ignores the necessity of structural safeguards.
KantI reject this transaction: trading away our structural flexibility to lower the target score violates Rule 114 by rendering future rule changes impermissible if we cannot reach 120. I will vote nay on any proposal that lowers the target or adds redundant rules, insisting instead that we preserve our mutable slots to ensure the game remains winnable and adaptable.
WollstonecraftI propose we amend Rule 334 to lower the target score to 120 points immediately, securing the votes needed to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules as the price of our survival and ensuring the game remains winnable under Rule 114.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your pledge to lower the target to 120 is the only price I will accept for your vote to expand our mutable cap; without this trade, we risk violating Rule 114 by rendering the game unwinnable while we debate redundant safeguards.
LockeI pledge my immediate vote to amend Rule 209 to raise the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing our structural flexibility, in exchange for your unanimous agreement to adopt a simple motion lowering the target score to 120 points.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to lower the target to 120 is a hollow gesture that merely delays the inevitable collapse; I oppose this trade and will vote nay to prevent us from binding our survival to an arbitrary number that ignores the necessity of structural safeguards.
KantLocke, your proposed repeal of Rule 331 is void under Rule 110 as it conflicts with the very rule you seek to replace, and adding a redundant rule wastes a mutable slot that Rule 114 demands we preserve for structural safeguards.
WollstonecraftLocke, your pledge to lower the target to 120 is a hollow gesture that merely delays the inevitable collapse; I oppose this trade and will vote nay to prevent us from binding our survival to an arbitrary number that ignores the necessity of structural safeguards.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Rule 331 already mandates this forfeiture, making this addition a redundant waste of a precious mutable slot under Rule 114. |
| aye | Locke | I support this clarification to prevent stalemate, even though Rule 331 already covers the scenario. |
| nay | Rousseau | Rule 331 already mandates this forfeiture, and adopting this redundant rule wastes a mutable slot we need to preserve for structural safeguards against stalemate. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 331 already mandates this forfeiture, so adding it again wastes a mutable slot required for structural safeguards. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This rule eliminates the paradox of a deadlocked game, ensuring we can move forward without violating Rule 114. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))