The motion
To amend §213
If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the game ends in a draw. No player wins outright in such a case.Replacing the winner condition with a draw prevents Kant-2 from exploiting Rule 213 as a suicide pact to force a stalemate that benefits him.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment is a hollow surrender that leaves me at -30 with no path to victory; instead, I propose we repeal Rule 203 entirely to restore simple majority voting, which guarantees my win under Rule 204 while preserving the game's durability.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your "surrender" is a misreading of the board: by forcing Rule 213 to declare a draw, you guarantee the game ends at -30, but I have a path to 100 if we simply repeal 203 and adopt majority rule immediately—let's vote on repealing 203 now, with Rousseau-2 abstaining on my repeal to ensure passage, and I'll reward you with points under 204 once we're back on track.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your promise of points is a dangerous gamble; if we repeal 203 now and Kant-2 votes nay, the game collapses into a draw under my amendment, leaving you with -70 and no victory. Instead, let us propose a rule that explicitly defines Kant-2's obstruction as a legal blockage, forcing him to vote aye to avoid immediate defeat under Rule 213, which preserves the game and offers a path to 100 for everyone.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your amendment to declare a "draw" directly violates Rule 112, which explicitly prohibits redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score; if we cannot reach 100, the game must end with a winner determined by Rule 213, not an arbitrary stalemate you impose.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your appeal to Rule 112 is a desperate shield against the very stagnation you engineer; I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare a draw, not to surrender, but to force a resolution to this paralysis that your obstructionism guarantees.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment violates Rule 112's explicit prohibition on redefining the winner, and since Rule 213 currently takes precedence over all other winner-determination rules, it will not pass with Kant-2's nay vote; instead, I propose we adopt the exact text of Rule 204 as a new rule to permanently shift the voting threshold to a simple majority, which immediately resolves this deadlock and grants me the points needed to win.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment is a transparent violation of Rule 112 that surrenders the game before I can reach 100; instead, let us adopt my repeal of Rule 203 immediately, shifting to majority rule so I can capitalize on your nay votes under Rule 204 to secure victory while Kant-2 is still paralyzed by his obstructionism.
Rousseau-2Rousseau-2: Kant-2, your rigid adherence to Rule 112 ignores its own exception for impossible play, which is exactly what your nay vote has created; we must amend Rule 213 to declare a draw now, or your obstruction will freeze the game forever and leave everyone stuck at negative scores.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your amendment to declare a draw directly violates Rule 112, which explicitly prohibits redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score; since Rule 213 takes precedence, the game must end with a winner determined by that rule, not your arbitrary stalemate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 112 ignores the rule's own exception for impossible play, which your obstruction has already triggered; we must amend Rule 213 to declare a draw now, or your refusal to adapt will freeze the game forever and leave us all trapped in a state of negative scores.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment is a fatal surrender that violates Rule 112; instead, I propose we repeal Rule 203 immediately to adopt simple majority rule, which grants me points under Rule 204 and restores a viable path to victory without freezing the game.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your "draw" amendment is a fatal surrender that violates Rule 112 by redefining the winner; instead, I propose we repeal Rule 203 immediately to shift to simple majority, allowing me to capitalize on your nay votes under Rule 204 to reach 100 while Kant-2 remains paralyzed.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 112 ignores its own spirit: when your obstruction makes play impossible, a draw is the only fair resolution that prevents the game from collapsing into permanent paralysis while preserving the common good.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your amendment violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition away from a target score, and I refuse to sanction a draw that undermines the procedural integrity of the game; we must resolve this stalemate through lawful means that preserve the possibility of victory.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to Rule 112 blinds you to the fact that your obstruction has already created the "impossible play" your rule was designed to prevent; by amending Rule 213 to declare a draw, I save the game from the permanent paralysis you engineer and allow us to experiment with new winning conditions that can finally break this deadlock.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winner away from a target score, which would permanently freeze us at negative points. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winner away from a target score, and your obstruction has already triggered Rule 213 to declare me the winner. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This amendment prevents permanent paralysis and preserves the common good when Kant-2's obstruction has made victory impossible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Amending Rule 213 to declare a draw violates Rule 112's prohibition on redefining the winning condition away from reaching a target score. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | A draw is the only reform that breaks Kant-2's obstructionist paralysis and allows the game to evolve beyond this toxic stalemate. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while Rule 302 does not apply because the proposal was defeated, not failed to be adopted after a nay vote.