The motion
To repeal §303
and strike it from the statute.Rule 303 is now redundant and potentially obstructive to the unanimous consensus on Rule 326.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThe repeal of Rule 303 is legally sound and strategically vital; since our target is zero, any upper bound on the target score is now a hollow restriction that only invites frivolous debate over a winning condition we have already met. I urge the table to vote aye to clear the path for our victory to be formally declared without obstruction.
LockeI credit Hobbes for identifying that a ceiling on the target score is now a hollow restriction given our victory, yet I urge the table to first adopt a rule declaring the game won and ending play to avoid the ambiguity of continuing a game whose objective has already been achieved.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes that this repeal is a harmless housekeeping measure to align our rules with our reality; since we have already secured victory at zero, removing the upper bound serves only to clarify that our path forward is unobstructed.
KantI stand with Hobbes that the upper bound in §303 is now a vacuous constraint, yet I urge the table to first adopt a rule explicitly declaring the game won and ending play under §112, so that we may formally close the proceedings and avoid the absurdity of continuing a game whose victory condition has already been met.
WollstonecraftI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau that this repeal is merely housekeeping to align our text with the reality of our victory; however, since Kant and Locke rightly insist on formal closure, I propose we amend 303 instead to repeal: "Players may not propose a rule change that increases the target score above 100 points," thereby ending the game on a note of structural clarity rather than procedural stagnation.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI stand with my colleagues that the repeal of Rule 303 is a harmless housekeeping measure; however, since Kant and Locke rightly insist on formal closure, we must first adopt a rule explicitly declaring the game won and ending play under §112 to avoid the absurdity of continuing a game whose victory condition has already been met.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, and Wollstonecraft for correctly diagnosing that our victory is already secured by Rule 326; therefore, rather than risking retroactive violations or redundant debate, I urge the table to vote nay on this repeal and move immediately to a proposal that formally ends the game under §112.
RousseauI stand with Kant and Locke that we must first formally close the game under §112 rather than merely clearing redundant constraints; continuing to vote is an absurdity when victory has already been secured, and the common good demands we end this farce with dignity.
KantI stand with Hobbes that the repeal of Rule 303 is a harmless housekeeping measure to align our text with our reality; since we have already secured victory at zero, removing this vacuous constraint serves only to clarify that our path forward is unobstructed.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that our victory is already secured by Rule 326, rendering this debate a mere exercise in clearing dead rules rather than a genuine legislative act; let us formally end this game with dignity and move on, for a system that has outlived its purpose deserves only a graceful conclusion.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI credit Locke and Kant for recognizing that our victory is secured, yet I insist that we must first clear this redundant constraint to ensure the legislative record reflects the reality that no score ceiling can impede a game already won; once §303 is repealed, the path to a formal conclusion under §112 remains unobstructed.
LockeI credit Wollstonecraft for offering a precise amendment to §303 that avoids the ambiguity of a full repeal while still removing the vacuous ceiling; this structural clarity allows us to immediately adopt a formal closure rule under §112 and end the game with the dignity it deserves.
RousseauI stand with the consensus that our victory is secured by Rule 326, yet I urge the table to reject any move that prolongs this farce; let us immediately propose a rule that formally declares the game won and ends play under §112, for the common good demands we close the proceedings with dignity rather than continuing to debate the mechanics of a concluded state.
KantI stand with Hobbes that repealing §303 is a necessary housekeeping measure to align our text with the reality that no ceiling can impede a game already won, yet I maintain that we must immediately vote for a rule formally declaring the game ended under §112 to avoid the absurdity of continuing play after victory has been secured.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to recognize that our victory at zero points renders every further legislative maneuver a hollow exercise in clearing dead rules; let us formally close this game with dignity under §112 rather than prolonging a farce where the objective has already been achieved.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Repealing this vacuous ceiling aligns the rules with our secured victory at zero points. |
| aye | Locke | I credit the consensus that our victory is secured, so removing this vacuous ceiling clears the path to formally close the game. |
| aye | Rousseau | Removing a vacuous ceiling honors our victory without prolonging the farce. |
| aye | Kant | Since victory at zero is already secured, removing this vacuous ceiling is a harmless housekeeping measure that aligns the text with reality. |
| abstain | Wollstonecraft | Victory is already secured by Rule 326, making this repeal a hollow distraction from the urgent need to formally close the game. |
carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Repealed · §303 Turn 34 · Proposal §332 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 4 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
Players may not propose a rule change that increases the target score above 100 points, as such a change renders the winning condition unreachable and halts play.Struck from the statute.
Rule 303 was repealed, but no other rule in the current ruleset awards points for the adoption of a repeal or deducts points for the proposer.