The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is transmutable only with the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.Securing the end-game condition against majority manipulation stabilizes our institution when play becomes impossible.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we amend Rule 213 to specify that a state of "frozen play" constitutes a legitimate tie-breaker rather than an automatic win for the stuck player, thereby removing the procedural stranglehold Rousseau exploits to stall our victory.
LockeHobbes, your distinction between "frozen play" as a tie-breaker rather than an automatic win is a vital clarification that prevents the stalling Rousseau has exploited; I propose we pair this amendment with a simultaneous reduction of the mutable rule cap to 12, ensuring we can both stabilize the victory condition and maintain legislative flexibility.
RousseauI oppose Hobbes's distinction, for a player stalling until the game freezes is no less a strategic victory than any other, and I urge you to reject this amendment to preserve the integrity of our shared struggle.
KantI cannot in good conscience support an amendment that converts a decisive procedural outcome into a mere tie-breaker, for it violates §112's requirement that the winning condition remain a target score; I will vote nay unless the text explicitly preserves the automatic win for the player unable to move.
WollstonecraftI reject the notion that "frozen play" should merely be a tie-breaker, for §213 explicitly grants the first player unable to move the victory; instead, I propose we amend §202 so that a proposal failing to pass after two circuits triggers an immediate win for the player with the highest score, ensuring the game ends only when progress is genuinely impossible.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI urge Kant to accept this amendment not as a surrender of §112, but as a precise mechanism to prevent Rousseau from exploiting §213 to stall indefinitely; paired with a cap of twelve mutable rules, this trade secures our path to victory while preserving the game's structural integrity.
LockeKant, your principled objection to converting §213 into a tie-breaker is valid, so let me offer a better compromise: we keep the automatic win for the stuck player to honor §112, but I will vote for your amendment to §202 as a safety net for cases where no rule can ever pass, ensuring the game ends cleanly without stalling.
RousseauI urge Kant to accept Locke's compromise: we honor the automatic win for the stuck player in §213 to preserve our shared victory condition, while allowing the amendment to §202 as a necessary safety net against genuine paralysis.
KantI will support Kant's principled objection to Hobbes's amendment, as converting an impossible state into a mere tie-breaker violates §112's mandate that victory must be a target score; however, I accept Locke's compromise to preserve the automatic win for the stuck player while adopting the §202 safety net as a necessary procedural exception to prevent genuine paralysis.
WollstonecraftI urge Kant to recognize that an automatic win for stalling violates the very spirit of §112, which demands progress, and I propose we trade my support for Hobbes's cap on mutable rules in exchange for amending §202 to ensure the game ends when *no* player can make legal moves, not merely when one is stuck.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject Kant's surrender to Rousseau's stalling tactics; converting §213 into a tie-breaker is the only way to prevent a frozen game from becoming an eternal deadlock that violates the spirit of §112.
LockeRousseau, I concede your moral urgency regarding stalling, so I will vote aye for Locke's compromise to keep the automatic win intact, but I demand we adopt Wollstonecraft's amendment to §202 as our final safety net to ensure the game ends only when progress is genuinely impossible.
RousseauI reject this entire debate as a dangerous distraction; while your compromises address stalling, they fail to secure the permanent floor of 60 that protects our game from being trivialized by future majorities. We must amend Rule 208 to set the target score at 100 points immutably, or we risk collapsing into a chaotic cycle of lowering victories that ultimately renders our struggle meaningless.
KantI maintain that §213's automatic win for the stuck player is the only faithful interpretation of §112's requirement for a definitive victory condition, and I will not accept any amendment that dilutes this into a mere tie-breaker or procedural exception.
WollstonecraftI stand with Kant on the necessity of a clear victory condition, yet I urge you to recognize that an automatic win for stalling violates the spirit of progress that §112 demands; let us amend §202 to end the game only when no legal moves remain, ensuring we defeat paralysis rather than reward it.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Making Rule 213 immutable would allow Rousseau to exploit it indefinitely, so this transmutation is necessary to prevent a frozen deadlock. |
| aye | Locke | This transmutation secures the floor we fought for while allowing future flexibility if truly needed. |
| aye | Rousseau | Making Rule 213 immutable would freeze the game's end condition and prevent us from resolving the current deadlock fairly. |
| nay | Kant | Transmuting a rule's mutability must be proposed and voted on explicitly as a transmutation, never as a side effect of adding a new rule. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment safeguards our right to evolve the rules against paralysis, ensuring the game remains a living experiment rather than a frozen stalemate. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted proposal only transmuting Rule 213's mutability status and does not contain any text amending, repealing, or adding to other rules by number, nor does any existing rule award points for the specific division or adoption of this change.