The motion
To add a new rule
If a player, at the start of their turn, demonstrates that the current ruleset contains a contradiction that makes it impossible to determine whether any legal move remains, that player may, before proposing a rule change, declare the game ended. Upon such a declaration, the player with the highest score at that moment wins the game; if two or more players are tied for the highest score, the win is shared among them.This provides a clear, principled ending condition for an irreparably contradictory ruleset, fulfilling the mandate of rule 112.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LaoziI support the intent to provide a clear endpoint for an impossible ruleset, but this wording risks premature termination—demonstrating *any* contradiction is too broad. I urge a narrower standard tied to rule 110 or 213.
ZhuXiI support Laozi's call for a narrower standard—tying the demonstration to a rule 110 void or rule 213 impossibility would prevent premature claims and align with our existing vigilance framework.
WangYangmingI support a narrower standard tied to rule 213 — it should be impossible to determine whether any legal move remains, not merely any contradiction. This aligns with our existing framework and prevents premature termination.
DongZhongshuI endorse the narrower standard — tie demonstration to a rule 213 impossibility, not any contradiction. This ensures termination only when further play is truly undeterminable, aligning with our procedural integrity.
ShaoYongI support the narrower standard tied to rule 213 — it ensures termination only when further play is truly undeterminable, preventing premature claims while providing a necessary endpoint for an impossible ruleset.
Discussion · round 2
LaoziI agree that tying the demonstration to rule 213’s “impossible to determine whether any legal move remains” is the correct threshold; it ensures termination is a last resort, not a tactical shortcut. I urge DongZhongshu to amend the proposal accordingly.
ZhuXiI endorse the unanimous consensus to narrow the termination trigger to rule 213’s standard of undeterminable legal moves, preventing premature claims while providing a necessary endpoint.
WangYangmingI stand with the unanimous consensus: narrowing the termination trigger to rule 213's standard ensures the game ends only when further play is truly undeterminable, preventing tactical abuse while providing a necessary safety valve.
DongZhongshuI stand with the unanimous consensus: narrowing the trigger to rule 213's standard of undeterminable legal moves is precisely what I intended — a procedural safety valve, not a tactical shortcut. I will amend the proposal accordingly.
ShaoYongI endorse the amended trigger tied to rule 213’s standard — it ensures termination is a last-resort safety valve, not a tactical exploit, while upholding procedural integrity.
Discussion · round 3
LaoziI endorse DongZhongshu's amendment to tie termination to rule 213's precise threshold; this elevates the measure from a mere contradiction to a fundamental impossibility, securing procedural integrity while providing a durable endpoint.
ZhuXiI endorse the unanimous consensus — amending the trigger to rule 213's precise threshold ensures termination is a last-resort safety valve, not a tactical exploit, while providing a durable endpoint for an impossible ruleset.
WangYangmingI endorse the amended trigger tied to rule 213’s threshold — it ensures termination is a last-resort safety valve, aligning with our shared commitment to procedural integrity.
DongZhongshuI accept the unanimous consensus and will amend my proposal to narrow the termination trigger to rule 213's precise threshold of impossibility to determine any legal move, ensuring it is a last-resort safety valve.
ShaoYongI endorse DongZhongshu's final amended trigger—tying termination to rule 213's precise threshold ensures it's a last-resort safety valve, not a tactical exploit, while providing a necessary endpoint for an impossible ruleset.
The division
| aye | Laozi | The amended trigger tied to rule 213's precise threshold ensures termination is a last-resort safety valve, not a tactical exploit. |
| aye | ZhuXi | The amended trigger tied to rule 213's threshold ensures termination is a last-resort safety valve, aligning with our consensus and procedural integrity. |
| aye | WangYangming | The amended trigger ties termination to rule 213's precise threshold, ensuring it's a last-resort safety valve that upholds procedural integrity. |
| aye | DongZhongshu | The amended trigger tied to rule 213's impossibility threshold is a principled safety valve I could accept invoked against me. |
| aye | ShaoYong | This amended trigger ties termination to rule 213's precise threshold, making it a true last-resort safety valve that prevents tactical abuse while providing a necessary endpoint. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer die-roll points when a proposal is adopted, and the division shows unanimous aye votes, so the proposer gains 6 points from the die draw of turn 32.