The motion
To add §348
A rule change is adopted only when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye, ensuring that critical amendments to the winning condition receive broad consensus before altering the game's fundamental purpose.This raises the threshold for Rule 112 violations, making it harder for rogue proposals to redefine victory and preserving the game's integrity.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your proposal to raise the threshold to two-thirds is a prudent brake against hasty amendments to our winning condition, yet it must not be mistaken for a redefinition of that condition itself under Rule 112; I vote nay to this specific text because it attempts to govern the process of winning rather than the winning itself, though I welcome the spirit of consensus that should guide any future moves to resolve our current stalemate.
LockeI commend Hobbes for distinguishing between process and substance, yet I propose we amend Rule 203 to specify that any change to Rule 208 itself must meet this two-thirds threshold, thereby securing the winning condition without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefinition.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this new burden, for raising the threshold to two-thirds abandons our common good by making rule change impossible for those of us trapped in negative scores; instead, let us accept that our current arithmetic deficit satisfies the condition of "impossible play" under Rule 213, ending this endless debate and allowing the game to conclude so we may begin anew.
KantI affirm my vote nay, for no procedural safeguard can legitimize a rule that effectively redefines the winning condition by substituting a dynamic deficit for the fixed target established in Rule 208, thereby violating Rule 112 while masquerading as a consensus mechanism.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject this procedural trap, for it wastes our only remaining mutable rule on a debate about how to lose, rather than solving the paralysis that has defined our last twenty turns; let us instead amend Rule 208 to set the target at zero, restoring the possibility of play and the common good without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend the spirit of Locke's amendment, yet I must vote nay because elevating the threshold for winning condition changes risks violating Rule 114 by effectively rendering the 40-point floor immutable under the guise of procedure; instead, let us embrace the arithmetic resolution already secured by Rule 336 and turn our attention to restoring a viable path to victory.
LockeI commend Hobbes for recognizing that my proposal seeks only to protect the existing target from redefinition, yet I urge the table to accept that this safeguard is essential for restoring confidence in our ability to reach a viable conclusion.
RousseauYou conflate the prohibition on redefining victory with a mandate to abandon the common good when we are trapped in arithmetic despair; instead of raising the voting threshold to seal our fate, we must amend Rule 213 to recognize that a collective negative total constitutes "impossible play" and allows us to end this endless debate.
KantI affirm that no procedural majority can legitimate a rule that redefines the target of victory, as Rule 112 permits only separate provisions for impossible play; thus, this proposal to alter the adoption threshold remains a violation of the immutable law of the winning condition.
WollstonecraftI urge you to reject this procedural trap that wastes our mutable rules on debating how to lose, instead of amending Rule 208 to set the target at zero and restore the possibility of play for the common good.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your insistence that our negative score equals "impossible play" under Rule 213 is a dangerous conflation of arithmetic despair with mechanical blockage, and I urge you to accept Rule 336 as the correct path forward rather than risking further deadlock; meanwhile, I oppose Locke's two-thirds threshold because it unnecessarily restricts our ability to resolve future disputes and threatens the very mutable nature of our system.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his clarity on the distinction between process and substance, and I propose we amend Rule 203 to require a two-thirds vote specifically for changes to Rule 208, thereby safeguarding the winning condition without violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefinition.
RousseauI urge you to recognize that our collective negative total already satisfies the "impossible play" condition of Rule 213, making this procedural debate a futile distraction from the game's natural conclusion. Instead of raising the threshold to seal our fate, we must accept that our arithmetic despair ends the game, restoring the common good by allowing us to begin anew.
KantI affirm that no procedural majority can legitimize a rule that redefines the target of victory, as Rule 112 permits only separate provisions for impossible play; thus, this proposal to alter the adoption threshold remains a violation of the immutable law of the winning condition.
WollstonecraftMy fellow players, we must reject this procedural trap that wastes our mutable rules debating how to lose; instead, let us amend Rule 208 to set the target at zero, restoring the possibility of play for the common good without violating Rule 112.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment restricts our ability to resolve future disputes by unnecessarily raising the threshold for rule adoption. |
| nay | Locke | This proposal wastes a mutable rule on a procedural safeguard that does not resolve our immediate arithmetic paralysis. |
| nay | Rousseau | This procedural barrier abandons the common good by sealing us in an endless debate rather than accepting our collective negative score as the natural end of play. |
| nay | Kant | This proposal attempts to redefine the winning condition's threshold, violating Rule 112's prohibition on redefining victory. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Raising the threshold traps us in endless debate rather than restoring the possibility of play. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 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.