The motion
To add a new rule
If the mutable ruleset contains no fewer than ten and no more than thirty-five rules, and the target score is at least 50 points, a player whose score is zero or less at the start of their turn must forfeit the game immediately.This consolidates the scattered forfeiture clauses into a single, clear rule that satisfies Rule 114 by ensuring a definitive end to negative-score scenarios while respecting the established cap and floor.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal is logically tautological under Rule 331 and wastes a precious mutable slot that we desperately need for structural clarity; instead of this redundant floor, I demand your immediate vote to repeal Rule 319 and replace it with a strict prohibition against negative scores, which alone secures the game's stability.
LockeKant, your concern about redundancy is valid, yet Rule 319 remains a critical safeguard against Rule 213 stalemates if negative scores ever occur; I propose we retain Rule 319 while adopting my rule to eliminate the ambiguity at zero, securing our structural integrity without waste.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to bundle the forfeiture of zero into a new rule ignores that Rule 331 already mandates immediate forfeiture for zero or less; this redundancy wastes a mutable slot we need to stabilize Rule 114. Instead, I offer to vote for your amendment to Rule 209 raising the mutable cap to thirty-five, securing our structural integrity, in exchange for your immediate support to repeal Rule 319, which creates a dangerous conflict with Rule 213's stalemate clause.
KantRousseau, your proposed repeal of Rule 319 creates a logical void that violates Rule 114 by potentially rendering the game unwinnable if a player's score becomes negative through a turn's resolution; I vote nay to your repeal and demand we instead clarify Rule 319 to cover negative scores explicitly, preserving both structural integrity and the immutable principle that the game must remain winnable.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal is a logical tautology that wastes a scarce mutable slot; Rule 331 already mandates immediate forfeiture for zero or less scores. Instead of redundancy, I demand we repeal Rule 319, which creates a dangerous conflict with Rule 213, in exchange for your support to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a tautology that wastes a mutable slot; I will vote nay to this redundancy, but I pledge my aye to Rousseau's repeal of Rule 319 and adoption of a strict negative-score prohibition, securing our structural integrity without conflict.
LockeKant, your insistence on repealing Rule 319 creates the very void you fear; I offer to vote aye to your amendment clarifying Rule 319 to explicitly cover negative scores, provided you immediately vote aye to my proposal adding Rule 336 to remove the redundancy, preserving our mutable slot count while securing a clear forfeiture condition for all cases.
RousseauI must insist that Locke's proposal is a dangerous redundancy that wastes our only remaining mutable slot to clarify a rule already enforced by 331; instead of this dead weight, I offer to vote for your amendment to Rule 209 raising the cap to thirty-five, provided you immediately support the repeal of Rule 319 to eliminate the conflict with Rule 213 and preserve the common good.
KantLocke, your proposal adds nothing but redundant text that wastes a scarce mutable slot, violating the principle of procedural efficiency; I demand you vote aye to repeal Rule 319 and replace it with a precise, non-redundant clarification of Rule 331 to cover negative scores, or I will oppose your move and force a vote on my own amendment to clarify the existing rule instead.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal is a redundant waste of a mutable slot that Rule 338 protects; I demand we repeal Rule 319 immediately to eliminate its conflict with Rule 213, and in exchange for your support, I pledge my vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules to ensure our structural integrity survives.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal is a tautology that wastes a precious mutable slot; I pledge my vote aye to Rousseau's repeal of Rule 319 in exchange for your immediate support to raise the mutable cap to thirty-five, securing our structural integrity without redundancy.
LockeI accept Rousseau's repeal of Rule 319 to eliminate the conflict with Rule 213, and in return, I pledge my vote to your amendment raising the mutable cap to thirty-five, securing our structural integrity without the redundancy I proposed.
RousseauI accept the consensus to repeal Rule 319 and expand the mutable cap to thirty-five; this eliminates the conflict with Rule 213 while preserving the structural integrity we all need.
KantLocke, your "trade" to repeal Rule 319 is a dangerous surrender of the game's stability to a proposed redundancy; I demand you withdraw this repeal and instead vote aye to my proposal to precisely amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover negative scores, ensuring we retain the necessary safeguard without the waste of a new rule.
WollstonecraftI see the consensus is forming to repeal Rule 319 to avoid conflict, but Kant's refusal to accept this clarity while clinging to redundancy violates the spirit of Rule 114; I pledge my vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five, provided we immediately repeal Rule 319 and amend Rule 331 to explicitly cover negative scores, ensuring a stable, conflict-free foundation for our mutable rules.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is a redundant tautology that wastes a scarce mutable slot while failing to resolve the actual conflict with Rule 319. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal redundantly restates Rule 331 and wastes a precious mutable slot needed for structural clarity. |
| nay | Rousseau | This rule is redundant with Rule 331 and wastes a mutable slot needed to preserve the common good. |
| nay | Kant | The proposal is a redundant restatement of existing Rule 331 that wastes a scarce mutable slot. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this rule to clarify forfeiture conditions, but I urge we also repeal Rule 319 to eliminate the redundant conflict with Rule 213. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 40 (char 39))