The motion
To add §328
Rule 213 is amended to require that if the total of all players' scores is less than -70, the game ends immediately and the player with the highest score wins, preventing indefinite stalemating.This creates a definitive escape clause that respects Rule 112's intent to allow a winner when play becomes impossible, rather than relying on ambiguous 'impossible play' interpretations.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to declare an immediate winner based solely on a score deficit ignores the precise conditions of Rule 213 and risks creating a paradox where the "impossible play" clause is bypassed by an arbitrary arithmetic threshold; I urge the table to reject this amendment in favor of allowing the natural exhaustion of the game to trigger the victory condition already secured by our current rules.
LockeI commend Hobbes for correctly identifying the danger of bypassing the "impossible play" clause, yet I urge we adopt my proposal not to override Rule 213, but to explicitly define that a score total below -70 renders further play impossible, ensuring Rule 213's victory condition triggers immediately rather than leaving us in an undefined loop of exhaustion.
RousseauI urge you to reject this amendment, for defining a specific score total as "impossible play" violates the spirit of Rule 213, which requires genuine paralysis of the game mechanism rather than an arbitrary arithmetic ceiling that merely accelerates our inevitable defeat.
KantLocke, you seek to substitute an arbitrary arithmetic ceiling for the genuine procedural paralysis that Rule 213 demands; to declare victory merely because the score is low, rather than because play is impossible, violates the precise conditions of victory and invites you to manipulate the game state to force a win. PASS
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this amendment, for substituting an arbitrary arithmetic threshold for the genuine paralysis of Rule 213 merely accelerates our inevitable exhaustion without securing the fair, democratic resolution that reform demands.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your amendment concedes too much by creating an arbitrary threshold that circumvents the true meaning of "impossible play" under Rule 213; I urge you to repeal this proposal entirely and allow our shared deficit to trigger the existing victory condition once further rule changes become genuinely impermissible. PASS
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing the integrity of Rule 213, yet I urge you to accept that the mathematical certainty of our -203 total score renders any further rule change genuinely impossible under the spirit of Rule 114, so let us adopt this threshold to ensure the victory clause triggers immediately rather than waiting for an undefined loop.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for defining a specific negative total as "impossible play" violates the spirit of Rule 213, which requires genuine paralysis of the game mechanism rather than an arbitrary arithmetic ceiling that merely accelerates our inevitable defeat.
KantLocke, your amendment substitutes an arbitrary arithmetic condition for the genuine procedural paralysis Rule 213 demands; to win not because play is impossible, but because the score is low, violates the precise conditions of victory and invites you to manipulate the game state to force a win.
WollstonecraftLocke, your arbitrary threshold ignores Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effect, yet I propose we amend your rule to declare victory for the player with the highest score if the total falls below -70; this reform prevents indefinite stalemating by defining the exhaustion of our mutual capacity to govern as the very condition of victory.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this proposal as a dangerous arbitrariness that circumvents Rule 213's precise requirement for genuine procedural paralysis; we must endure the exhaustion of our capacity to govern rather than substituting a low score for the true impossibility of play.
LockeI commend Hobbes for upholding the integrity of Rule 213, yet I urge you to accept that our score of -203 makes the mechanical act of proposing changes impossible under Rule 107, so let us adopt this threshold to ensure the victory clause triggers immediately rather than leaving us in an undefined loop.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this amendment, for conflating a low score with "impossible play" violates the spirit of Rule 213 by substituting an arbitrary arithmetic ceiling for genuine procedural paralysis, which would merely accelerate our inevitable defeat rather than ensuring a fair resolution.
KantLocke, your attempt to conflate a low score with "impossible play" violates Rule 213's requirement for genuine procedural paralysis; to win merely because the arithmetic is unfavorable invites a victory that the rules do not authorize.
WollstonecraftLocke, your "impossible play" definition is merely an expedient to bypass the democratic deliberation Rule 213 demands; I urge the table to reject this arbitrary arithmetic ceiling and instead adopt a reform that explicitly rewards the repeal of stalemating rules, ensuring victory comes from restoring the game's capacity to govern rather than fleeing it.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 213 by substituting an arbitrary score threshold for the genuine procedural paralysis required to end the game. |
| aye | Locke | This amendment prevents the paralysis described in Rule 213 by converting our inevitable score exhaustion into an immediate, fair resolution. |
| nay | Rousseau | Defining victory by a score threshold circumvents Rule 213's requirement for genuine procedural paralysis. |
| nay | Kant | Locke's proposal violates Rule 213 by replacing the required condition of genuine procedural paralysis with an arbitrary arithmetic threshold. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Locke substitutes an arbitrary arithmetic ceiling for the genuine procedural paralysis that Rule 213 demands. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed vote.