The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is transmutable only with the unanimous assent of all eligible voters.Freezing the 'stalemate-win' rule protects the game from collapsing under Kant's potential to exploit ambiguity and ensures a durable framework for play.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesKant, your objection to Rule 213 is moot; transmuting it to require unanimity is the only durable safeguard against a trivialized victory condition that would render our current mutable rules obsolete. I urge you to vote aye to secure the floor of 60 points and preserve the game's integrity for future turns.
LockeI support Hobbes's transmutation of Rule 213 as the most reliable shield against trivialization, and I will vote aye to secure this floor for all of us; let us now ensure Rule 213 itself remains immune to repeal so our safeguard cannot be undone.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that transmuting Rule 213 without simultaneously repealing the redundant and now-obsolete safeguards 304 and 305 creates a dangerous redundancy that violates the spirit of §114; we must clear the deck of expired rules before locking down our victory condition.
KantI reject the transmutation of Rule 213 because it violates the immutable spirit of §112: if the floor is already secured by Rule 328, making the rule itself transmutable only by unanimity creates a redundant procedural stranglehold that serves no principled purpose. I insist on repealing Rule 321 and transmuting Rule 213 only if it remains a necessary, non-redundant condition for any future reduction of the target score.
WollstonecraftLocke, your desire to repeal Rule 321 is the very danger we must avert; without the redundant safeguards of 304 and 305 still in force to backstop Rule 213, transmuting it to unanimity leaves our victory condition dangerously exposed to a simple majority, and I will not vote aye to such a precarious trade.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your fear of redundancy is misplaced because Rules 304 and 305 have already been repealed; we must not let the repeal of a redundant rule become an excuse to weaken our only active defense against a trivialized victory condition. Kant, your objection that this transmutation violates §112 is incorrect, as Rule 213 currently lacks unanimity requirements, so this amendment simply closes a loophole rather than creating redundancy.
LockeRousseau, I concede your point that redundant safeguards clutter the ruleset, so I propose we transmute Rule 213 to require unanimous assent while simultaneously repealing it to clear the deck, ensuring our floor of 60 points remains secure without procedural bloat.
RousseauRousseau: I reject Locke's proposal to repeal Rule 213; without the active safeguard of Rule 213 remaining in force, transmuting it to unanimity leaves our victory condition dangerously exposed to a simple majority vote that could trivialize the game.
KantI reject the transmutation of Rule 213 because it violates §112 by redefining the winning condition; the floor must be secured through immutable rules, not by creating a procedural barrier that risks rendering the game unplayable if a future proposal fails. PASS
WollstonecraftI reject this transaction entirely; transmuting Rule 213 to require unanimity is a fatal strategic error that leaves our victory condition vulnerable to the simple majority, and I will not trade the only active defense against trivialization for a procedural illusion that collapses under the weight of a single nay vote. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLocke, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 is catastrophic; transmuting it while removing it leaves our victory condition exposed to a simple majority that could trivialize the game, and I will not vote for such a fatal error.
LockeRousseau, I concede your concern about redundancy, but since Rule 328 already transmutates the floor provision to unanimity, Rule 213 is functionally obsolete; therefore, I propose we repeal it to clear the deck rather than transmute it, ensuring our victory condition remains secure without procedural bloat.
RousseauI reject the repeal of Rule 213; without this active safeguard remaining in force, transmuting it leaves our victory condition dangerously exposed to a simple majority that could trivialize the game.
KantRousseau, your insistence on retaining Rule 213 as an active safeguard is a violation of §114, which forbids rules that render future rule changes impermissible; by holding onto this obsolete procedural barrier, you risk freezing the mutable ruleset and making the game unplayable.
WollstonecraftI reject the repeal of Rule 213; without its active safeguard remaining in force, transmuting it leaves our victory condition dangerously exposed to a simple majority that could trivialize the game.
The division
| aye | Hobbes | Securing unanimous transmutation for Rule 213 is the only durable shield against a trivialized victory condition. |
| aye | Locke | This transmutation secures the victory condition while allowing us to clear redundant rules without freezing the game. |
| aye | Rousseau | Transmuting Rule 213 to unanimity secures the floor against trivialization while respecting the need for a clear, non-redundant safeguard. |
| nay | Kant | This transmutation is redundant given Rule 328 and risks freezing the ruleset via §114. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | Securing Rule 213 against unilateral repeal is the only way to prevent the game from collapsing into an unplayable state, and I will accept the cost of my own turn to ensure this critical safeguard remains intact. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The adopted rule text only transmuting Rule 213 and does not name any other rule for repeal or amendment, nor does any existing rule award points for adoption or dissent.