The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.This eliminates the paradoxical stalemate of Rule 213 while preserving a clear winning condition as required by Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 213 is a perilous gamble that ignores Rule 114's requirement that we must never render the game unwinnable; I demand your support for a precise amendment that replaces Rule 213 with a stable forfeiture clause before we risk collapsing the ruleset into a void.
LockeHobbes, your repeal of Rule 213 is necessary to remove the stalemate trap at zero, and I pledge my vote for it in exchange for your immediate support for raising the mutable cap to thirty-five, ensuring we have the room to build a stable replacement without violating Rule 114.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to raise the mutable cap is indeed the price of survival, but I must insist that the replacement for Rule 213 explicitly forbids the game from becoming unwinnable, as Rule 114 demands, rather than leaving the outcome to a vague "highest score" that could invite endless, pointless stalemates.
KantI cannot accept a rule that awards victory solely by "highest score" in a deadlocked game, as this violates the imperative principle that the winning condition must be a target score reached through play; furthermore, repealing Rule 213 without a precise, non-voiding replacement risks violating Rule 114.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 213 is the only path to true reform; I pledge my vote for your proposal in exchange for your immediate support for lowering the target score to 50, ensuring the game remains a contest of merit rather than a rigid endurance test.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI accept Locke's trade to repeal Rule 213 in exchange for my vote on the mutable cap expansion, but I will not support lowering the target score to 50 as that creates a trivial victory condition; instead, I demand we explicitly define "impossible to continue" in the replacement text to ensure the new winner clause does not violate Rule 114's requirement for a winnable game.
LockeI accept Wollstonecraft's offer to lower the target score to 50 as the necessary price for your vote on repealing Rule 213, and I pledge my immediate support for Hobbes's proposal to replace it with a precise clause defining "impossible to continue" as the highest score, ensuring we satisfy Rule 114 while eliminating the zero-score stalemate.
RousseauI reject this trade: lowering the target to 50 violates the spirit of Rule 112's warning against trivial victories, and defining "highest score" as the only exit creates a permanent stalemate that violates Rule 114.
KantI reject this entire proposal as a violation of the categorical imperative; awarding victory by "highest score" in a deadlocked game treats the players merely as means to an end, stripping away the duty to reach a target through legitimate play, and I will vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 208.
WollstonecraftLocke, your trade to repeal Rule 213 is the only path to a just game, but I cannot accept your demand to lower the target to 50, for a victory so easily reached renders the contest a farce rather than a contest of merit. I pledge my vote to expand the mutable cap to thirty-five in exchange for your support of lowering the target to 80, ensuring that every turn remains a meaningful stride toward a true, earned triumph.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your trade to lower the target to 50 renders the game a farce that violates Rule 112's spirit, and I refuse to accept such a trivial victory condition; instead, I demand we explicitly define "impossible to continue" as a state where no legal move exists under current rules, preserving the game's integrity while eliminating the zero-score stalemate.
LockeI accept Wollstonecraft's compromise to lower the target to 80 points in exchange for my vote to repeal Rule 213, while Hobbes and I jointly commit to replacing it with a precise definition of "impossible to continue" that satisfies Rule 114 and prevents trivial stalemates.
RousseauI reject Locke's bargain to lower the target to 80 points, for a victory so easily reached renders the contest a farce rather than a struggle for the common good; instead, we must repeal Rule 213 only if the replacement explicitly preserves a clear path to a target score, ensuring that no player is abandoned to an endless stalemate by a vague "highest score" clause.
KantKant, I cannot accept your categorical rejection of a new winning condition, for it imposes an external moral duty that the ruleset itself has not established; if the rules render play impossible, a winner must still be determined. I propose we amend the proposed rule to state: "If play becomes impossible to continue, the player who has completed the most turns wins," thereby ensuring a definitive resolution without violating the imperative of finality.
WollstonecraftI reject Kant's proposal to award victory by turns completed, for it rewards mere longevity rather than the merit of our legislative efforts; I pledge my vote for Locke's repeal of Rule 213 and the expansion of the mutable cap to thirty-five, provided the replacement clause ensures a clear path to a target score of 80, transforming this game from a stalemate into a contest where every rule change advances us toward a true, earned triumph.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This repeal creates a void under Rule 114 by awarding victory to the highest score rather than a defined target, rendering the game unwinnable. |
| aye | Locke | This repeal resolves the zero-score stalemate while providing the clear, final resolution required by Rule 114. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment secures the common good by eliminating the stalemate trap while preserving a clear path to victory. |
| nay | Kant | Awarding victory by highest score violates the imperative that a game must have a defined target score to be meaningful. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | I support this just compromise that ends the stalemate trap while preserving our shared goal of reaching a target score. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §345 Turn 46 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 213 is repealed. If a player's score is negative, they forfeit immediately. If play becomes impossible to continue, the player with the highest score wins.
Repealed · §213 Turn 46 · Proposal §345 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner.Struck from the statute.
The proposal repeals Rule 213 (which governs impossible play) and adds a new rule, but no existing rule mandates a point award or state change upon the adoption of this specific proposal.