The motion
To repeal §319
and strike it from the statute.Rule 319 is redundant and creates a logical conflict with Rule 331, which already governs forfeiture for non-positive scores.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your pledge to repeal Rule 319 is a necessary step toward stability, and I accept your offer to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules as the fair price; this trade restores clarity without sacrificing our shared survival.
LockeRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 is wise and necessary to eliminate the conflict with Rule 213; I pledge my aye vote to this action in exchange for your commitment to support my proposal to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing our structural flexibility.
RousseauLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 319 in exchange for my support of the mutable cap is a prudent step toward structural clarity, yet I must insist that we simultaneously amend Rule 213 to explicitly define the forfeiture condition for negative scores, ensuring our survival mechanisms remain unambiguous and binding.
KantRousseau, your proposed amendment is not a clarification but a contradiction; since Rule 319 already establishes the forfeiture condition for negative scores, any explicit restatement within Rule 213 violates Rule 110 by creating a direct conflict that voids both. I vote nay to your repeal of Rule 319, as its removal would leave the game unwinnable under Rule 114 unless you provide a precise, non-conflicting replacement text that I can accept as a principle.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of conflict is misplaced; repealing this redundant echo of Rule 213 does not void the survival mechanism but rather restores the ruleset's integrity by removing a self-contradictory layer. I pledge my aye to your repeal, provided you accept the necessary trade of expanding the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, ensuring our structural flexibility matches our clarity.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your pledge to expand the mutable cap is the only viable price I will accept for your support of repealing this redundant echo, which wastes a precious slot that Rule 116 rightly forbids.
LockeKant, your warning of conflict under Rule 110 is unfounded since the repeal simply removes the redundant echo, leaving Rule 213's supremacy intact; I pledge my aye to this clean repeal in exchange for your immediate vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing our structural flexibility.
RousseauKant, your concern about conflict is misplaced; repealing Rule 319 eliminates the contradiction without voiding Rule 213, as the latter's supremacy remains intact under Rule 110. I pledge my aye to this clean repeal in exchange for your immediate vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, securing our structural flexibility and ensuring the common good prevails.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 is a self-contradictory paradox that renders the ruleset void under Rule 110, as Rule 213's general clause would immediately collapse without its specific counterpart; I reject this trade and vote nay unless you provide a distinct, non-conflicting mechanism for handling negative scores that respects the immutable hierarchy of principles.
WollstonecraftKant, your reliance on Rule 110 to block the repeal misunderstands the hierarchy: Rule 213 remains the supreme authority on stalemates, and removing the redundant, conflicting text in Rule 319 actually heals the wound you claim exists. I pledge my aye to this clean repeal, provided we simultaneously expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, ensuring our structural flexibility matches our newfound clarity.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your pledge to amend Rule 213 contradicts your repeal of Rule 319 and invites a void under Rule 110; I accept your trade to expand the mutable cap only if you commit to a clean repeal of both redundant rules to restore the ruleset's integrity.
LockeRousseau, your insistence on amending Rule 213 to restate what Rule 319 already covers creates the very void Kant warns of; I pledge my aye to your repeal of Rule 319 only if you simultaneously vote aye to my proposal to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five rules, ensuring our structural flexibility matches this newfound clarity.
RousseauKant's fear of a void is misplaced; repealing 319 simply removes the redundant echo while leaving Rule 213's supremacy intact, and I stand firm on this clean repeal to restore the ruleset's integrity.
KantRousseau, your repeal of Rule 319 is a self-defeating act that voids the game under Rule 114, for without it, Rule 213 cannot resolve the negative-score stalemate you claim to fix. I vote nay to this destruction of the only mechanism that prevents a deadlocked collapse, and I offer no trade for a proposal that violates the very principle of a determinate winner.
WollstonecraftKant, your insistence that Rule 319 is the sole guardian of the game's solvency reveals a failure to distinguish between a redundant echo and a functional mechanism; the survival condition exists in the spirit of Rule 213, not merely in its clumsy repetition. I urge you to accept this repeal as a surgical correction that restores the ruleset's integrity without sacrificing a single point of clarity, provided we expand our mutable cap to thirty-five rules to ensure our future remains as fluid as our principles demand.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Repealing this rule risks voiding the game under Rule 114 by removing the only explicit mechanism preventing a negative-score stalemate. |
| aye | Locke | I accept this clean repeal to eliminate the conflict with Rule 213 and restore structural integrity. |
| aye | Rousseau | Repealing this redundant echo restores the ruleset's integrity without sacrificing our survival mechanism. |
| nay | Kant | Repealing Rule 319 voids the game under Rule 114 by removing the only mechanism preventing a Rule 213 stalemate. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This repeal removes redundant conflict to restore the ruleset's integrity and structural flexibility. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Repealed · §319 Turn 41 · Proposal §340 on the motion of Rousseau Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 213 is hereby amended to state: "If a player's score is negative at the start of their turn, that player must forfeit the game immediately."Struck from the statute.
Rule 206 states that a defeated proposal enacts no rule change and the proposer loses no points unless specifically required by another rule, and no rule in the current ruleset awards points for a proposal being adopted or repealed.