The motion
To amend §345
Rule 213 is repealed.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.I accept Hobbes's trade to repeal Rule 213 in exchange for my vote to expand the mutable cap, securing our structural integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 while retaining its functional substance creates a dangerous void under Rule 114 by removing the explicit regulatory mechanism that prevents infinite stalemate; I must vote nay to preserve the structural integrity of our mutable rule count.
LockeKant, your fear of a void is misplaced: Rule 345 itself provides the winning condition for impossible play, satisfying Rule 114's requirement that at least one mutable rule remains. I propose we amend Rule 203 to permanently set the adoption threshold at simple majority, removing the circuit-based delay that Hobbes rightly identifies as a source of stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to conflate a repeal of Rule 213 with an amendment to Rule 203 violates Rule 103, which forbids bundling distinct kinds of rule changes; I will vote nay unless this proposal is strictly limited to repealing Rule 213 and we address the threshold issue in a separate, properly constituted motion.
KantRousseau, your invocation of Rule 103 is correct: bundling a repeal with an amendment violates the requirement for precise proposals. However, I cannot support a repeal that leaves the game without a definitive resolution for impossible play, as this risks violating Rule 114; we must adopt a rule that explicitly handles stalemate before repealing any existing mechanism.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 without a clear alternative for impossible play risks violating Rule 114; let us instead amend Rule 213 to explicitly state that the player with the highest score wins, preserving the rule's substance while removing its redundancy.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your refusal to isolate the repeal from the threshold amendment violates Rule 103, and Kant, your fear of a void is unfounded because Rule 345 itself establishes a clear winner for impossible play; I will vote nay to preserve the structural distinction between repealing a rule and amending the voting threshold.
LockeKant, your fear of a void is misplaced: Rule 345 itself satisfies Rule 114 by explicitly defining a winner for impossible play. I propose we amend Rule 203 to permanently set the adoption threshold at simple majority, removing the circuit-based delay that Hobbes rightly identifies as a source of stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your attempt to conflate the repeal of Rule 213 with an amendment to Rule 203 violates Rule 103; I must vote nay unless we isolate the repeal and address the threshold in a separate motion to preserve the integrity of the ruleset.
KantLocke, your attempt to bundle a repeal of Rule 213 with an amendment to Rule 203 violates Rule 103; I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of distinct rule changes.
WollstonecraftLocke, your proposal to bundle a repeal with an amendment violates Rule 103, and Kant, your fear of a void is unfounded because Rule 345 itself explicitly defines a winner for impossible play; we must adopt this efficient consolidation now to remove the redundant echo of Rule 213.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI must vote nay to Locke's bundled proposal; it violates Rule 103 by conflating a repeal with an amendment, and I will not support a motion that fails on procedural grounds before addressing the substance.
LockeI accept Rousseau's procedural correction and will withdraw the bundled amendment to respect Rule 103; however, I pledge my immediate vote for a separate motion to permanently set the voting threshold at simple majority in exchange for your support of repealing Rule 213 today.
RousseauLocke, your pledge to permanently alter the voting threshold is a necessary concession to secure this repeal, but it must be isolated in its own motion to respect Rule 103; I will support your separate proposal to amend Rule 203 once we have first cleanly repealed Rule 213 to prevent any future voids.
KantLocke, your pledge to permanently freeze the voting threshold violates the spirit of procedural justice and risks creating a permanent deadlock if the mutable rule count approaches its limit; I support only the repeal of Rule 213 as a standalone motion to eliminate redundancy without compromising our ability to adjust governance as circumstances evolve.
WollstonecraftKant, your fear of a void is unfounded: Rule 345 explicitly defines a winner for impossible play, so repealing Rule 213 strengthens rather than weakens our structural integrity. I urge you to vote aye to eliminate this redundant echo and let us move forward with a clearer, more efficient set of laws.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Locke's isolation of the repeal respects Rule 103 while Rule 345 itself provides a valid winner for impossible play, satisfying Rule 114. |
| aye | Locke | This repeal cleanly removes redundancy while Rule 345 preserves the necessary stalemate resolution. |
| nay | Rousseau | I oppose bundling a repeal with an amendment to Rule 203, as Rule 103 strictly forbids conflating distinct kinds of rule changes. |
| nay | Kant | I must reject this bundled proposal because it violates Rule 103 by conflating a repeal with an amendment. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Repealing redundant text clarifies the rules without harming the game's fairness or win condition. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §345 Turn 47 · Proposal §346 on the motion of Locke 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.
Rule 202 awards points only upon adoption of a proposal that involves rolling a die, and no rule in the current set awards points for the mere adoption of a rule change text.