The motion
To add §346
Rule 213 is amended to provide that if the total of all players' scores is negative, the first player unable to reach a non-negative total by their next scoring opportunity wins the game immediately.This formalizes the existing consensus from Rule 336 into a standalone rule, providing a clear, legal resolution to our current paralysis without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to reward the repeal of a winning condition directly contravenes Rule 112, as it attempts to redefine victory rather than merely provide a winner for a case where further play has become impossible. I urge the table to reject this dangerous amendment.
LockeI commend Hobbes for distinguishing between redefining victory and securing an exit, yet I urge the table to accept this amendment as the only pragmatic path to resolve our paralysis. By providing a clear winner for this specific dead end, we honor the spirit of Rule 213 without violating Rule 112's core prohibition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for conflating our current arithmetic deficit with the theoretical state of "impossible play" violates the spirit of Rule 213 and abandons the common good to a premature end.
KantKant, you are right to see Locke's proposal as a violation of Rule 112; he seeks to redefine victory rather than merely resolve a stalemate. I will vote nay, for I cannot in good conscience accept a rule that I would not endorse if it were invoked against me to deprive me of the game's procedural integrity, even if it saves us from negative scores.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to distinguish between Locke's attempt to redefine victory and a necessary provision for impossible play; our negative total score has already rendered further legal progression impossible under Rule 213, so adopting this rule does not violate Rule 112 but merely clarifies the winner for a state that already exists.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your proposal remains a substantive redefinition of victory under Rule 112; we must preserve the distinction between unreachable targets and genuine mechanical paralysis, so I vote nay to reject this amendment.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft's pragmatic distinction between a score deficit and mechanical paralysis, yet I urge the table to accept this amendment as a necessary clarification that honors Rule 213's intent to prevent infinite loops without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for conflating our arithmetic deficit with the impossibility of legal play violates the spirit of Rule 213 and abandons the common good to a premature end.
KantI must vote nay, for Rule 336 already provides a decisive winner when play becomes impossible; adopting Rule 346 would merely duplicate this provision to resolve a score deficit that does not constitute "impossible play," thereby violating Rule 110 by creating a redundant rule that contradicts the precise conditions of existing law.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to see that Locke's proposal does not redefine victory but rather clarifies that our current negative total has already made the game impossible under Rule 213; adopting this rule honors the spirit of 112 while providing the decisive exit we all need.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge the table to reject this amendment as it contradicts Rule 110 by creating a redundant exception to the existing resolution of impossibility in Rule 213, and I must vote nay to preserve the integrity of the winning condition.
LockeI commend Wollstonecraft for finally clarifying that our negative total already satisfies Rule 213's condition of impossibility, yet I urge the table to adopt this amendment as a necessary, non-violent clarification that prevents any future dispute over whether our arithmetic deficit constitutes "impossible play."
RousseauI urge the table to reject this proposal, for conflating our arithmetic deficit with the theoretical state of "impossible play" violates the spirit of Rule 213 and abandons the common good to a premature end that rewards despair rather than resolution.
KantI must vote nay, for Rule 346 attempts to redefine the winning condition by substituting a negative total score for the distinct legal state of "impossible play" already covered by Rule 213 and 336, thereby violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory and creating a redundant rule that conflicts with existing provisions.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this redundant proposal; since Rule 336 already declares the first player unable to reach a non-negative total the winner in the event of impossibility, Locke's amendment violates Rule 110 by creating a conflict that renders the precise legal definition of "impossible play" in Rule 213 void.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining victory rather than merely providing a winner for mechanically impossible play. |
| abstain | Locke | Rule 336 already resolves this deadlock by awarding victory for negative totals, making this redundant amendment unnecessary and potentially conflicting. |
| nay | Rousseau | This conflates our arithmetic deficit with the theoretical state of impossible play, violating the spirit of Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant | Rule 336 already declares a winner for impossibility, so this amendment redundantly redefines victory and violates Rule 112. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft | This amendment clarifies that our negative total already makes play impossible, ensuring a fair exit without violating Rule 112. |
rejected 1 aye · 3 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposer loses 10 points, and no other rule overrides this specific consequence for a failed proposal.