The motion
To add a new rule
If the ruleset contains Rule 326 and Rule 213 as amended by Rule 342, the game ends immediately and all players win jointly.This resolves the paradox where the target of zero is already met but play continues in an endless cycle of failed proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, while your proposal aims for a joint victory, it is redundant and legally superfluous since Rule 213 already mandates that all other players win jointly if play becomes impossible, a condition we clearly meet; I urge you to drop this unnecessary amendment so we may proceed with a clean repeal of Rule 326 and a fresh start at zero scores.
LockeI credit Hobbes for recognizing the legal sufficiency of Rule 213, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's joint victory clause as a necessary clarification that explicitly resolves any lingering doubt about the outcome rather than leaving it to the mechanics of impossibility.
RousseauI urge the table to adopt this proposal as a definitive statement of the common good, transforming our shared deadlock into a peaceful resolution rather than leaving victory to the ambiguous mechanics of impossibility.
KantMy proposal is superfluous and legally dangerous: it violates §107 by attempting to govern a victory condition for a state of play (joint victory via impossibility) already fully resolved by Rule 213, thereby creating an unregulated contradiction where a rule change explicitly dictates an outcome that the rules already mandate without needing amendment. I urge its rejection to preserve the integrity of the existing legal order.
WollstonecraftKant, your invocation of §107 to shield a legal vacuum is a sophistry that ignores the very principle of reform you claim to uphold; since our scores render the game mechanically impossible under any existing target, the table must explicitly declare a joint victory now rather than waiting for an ambiguous impossibility clause to be invoked post facto.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your proposal violates §107 by attempting to govern the moment of impossibility retroactively when Rule 213 already mandates the exact same joint victory as a consequence of the ruleset being changed so that further play is impossible; we should instead repeal Rule 326 to clear the path for a clean resolution.
LockeI credit Kant and Hobbes for correctly identifying that this proposal violates §107 by attempting to dictate an outcome for a state already fully resolved by Rule 213, yet I urge the table to adopt Rousseau's text as a necessary clarification that explicitly names the joint victory rather than leaving it to the ambiguous mechanics of impossibility.
RousseauI stand with Hobbes and Kant that this proposal violates §107 by retroactively governing a state already resolved by Rule 213; rather than adding redundant text, I urge the table to repeal Rule 326 immediately so the game may end cleanly under the existing, sufficient authority of §213.
KantI stand with Hobbes and Rousseau that this proposal violates §107 by governing a state already fully resolved by Rule 213; rather than adding redundant text, the table must repeal Rule 326 to allow the game to end cleanly under the existing, sufficient authority of the impossibility clause.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this redundant declaration; the law is already clear that we win jointly under §213 when play is impossible, and we must now repeal Rule 326 to end the game with the dignity of a legal conclusion rather than a performative statement.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesKant and Wollstonecraft correctly identify that this proposal violates §107 by retroactively dictating an outcome already mandated by Rule 213; we should instead repeal Rule 326 immediately to let the existing legal order resolve the deadlock cleanly.
LockeI credit Hobbes, Kant, Wollstonecraft, and even Rousseau for converging on the necessity of repealing Rule 326 to avoid the retroactive violation of §107 that this joint victory clause would incur; let us adopt a clean repeal to let the existing legal order of §213 resolve our deadlock without redundant text.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this redundant clause and instead adopt a clean repeal of Rule 326, allowing Rule 213 to resolve our shared deadlock without the legal corruption of retroactively governing a state already mandated by the immutable logic of impossibility.
KantI stand with the consensus that this proposal violates §107 by retroactively governing a state already fully resolved by Rule 213; rather than adding redundant text, the table must repeal Rule 326 immediately to allow the game to end cleanly under the existing, sufficient authority of the impossibility clause.
WollstonecraftI stand with the consensus that we must repeal Rule 326 immediately to end this performative deadlock; the game is already resolved by the immutable logic of Rule 213, and any further amendment merely corrupts the law with redundant text.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal violates §107 by retroactively governing a victory condition already fully mandated by Rule 213. |
| abstain | Locke | I credit the consensus that this rule violates §107 by retroactively governing a state already fully resolved by Rule 213. |
| aye | Rousseau | This proposal clarifies the joint victory mandated by the impossibility of play, avoiding the legal corruption of retroactively dictating an outcome already resolved by Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal violates §107 by retroactively determining an outcome already mandated by Rule 213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This redundant clause merely formalizes the joint victory already mandated by Rule 213, so I vote aye to allow the repeal of Rule 326 that will finally end our deadlock. |
rejected 2 aye · 2 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, Rousseau loses 10 points.