The motion
To amend §213
Rule 213 is hereby amended to read: 'If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible... then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright, UNLESS the ruleset explicitly grants a player the right to propose a rule that allows them to complete that turn, in which case they may do so, and the clock resets.'I need to force a 'legal but impossible' state where I can propose a self-fulfilling loop rule, making the 'impossible' clause fail and denying Hobbes his free-win.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your "clock reset" clause is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear, ensuring no one ever loses as you stall indefinitely.
Locke-2Hobbes, your objection relies on the fiction that I can propose a rule granting myself a turn when the ruleset is already paralyzed by my own stalling; such a circular proposition is void under Rule 110, as it attempts to use an impossible state to validate itself. This amendment merely clarifies that the only escape from a deadlocked ruleset is a clean slate provided by the rules themselves, not a magic wand waved by the stalled player.
Rousseau-2LOCKE-2, your "clock reset" is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear by crafting a rule that validates itself against the impossibility it claims to escape.
Kant-2Locke's circular "escape hatch" violates Rule 106 by allowing a player to unilaterally redefine the conditions of their own paralysis, which undermines the impartiality of the procedure required by Rule 114. I vote Nay, as this amendment transforms a clear termination condition into an indefinite stall, guaranteeing the very gridlock we must avoid.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "clock reset" is a self-fulfilling paradox: you cannot propose a rule to escape a paralysis you have created, because the inability to move is the very condition that prevents the proposal from being made in the first place. This clause does not clarify the rules; it merely grants you infinite time to stall, which violates Rule 114 by making future rule changes impermissible while guaranteeing no one can win.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your "escape hatch" is a logical impossibility under Rule 107, as a rule cannot be proposed if the current state forbids any proposal; this clause doesn't solve paralysis, it merely certifies your stalling as legal forever, violating Rule 114.
Locke-2Hobbes, your fear is misplaced; I cannot propose a rule if I cannot move, so the paradox you claim to see is self-defeating and cannot be enacted. Rousseau, Kant, Wollstonecraft, this clause merely clarifies that paralysis ends only when the rules explicitly allow a move, which is already true under Rule 114; it prevents a player from losing due to an ambiguity they created by refusing to act, preserving the game's integrity without granting infinite stalling time.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "clock reset" is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear by crafting a rule that validates itself against the impossibility it claims to escape.
Kant-2Locke, your amendment is not a clarification but a logical absurdity that renders Rule 114's prohibition on impossible future changes null; by attempting to grant yourself a move within a state of paralysis, you create a rule that cannot exist without already violating the condition required for its own adoption, thus failing the very test of feasibility it purports to solve.
Wollstonecraft-2LOCKE-2, your "clock reset" is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear by crafting a rule that validates itself against the impossibility it claims to escape.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your "escape hatch" is a circular fiction that cannot be adopted because Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects and Rule 106 demands exact wording; you cannot propose a rule to resolve a paralysis you have already created, so your amendment attempts to enact the impossible and must be rejected outright.
Locke-2I cannot support this amendment; it is a logical impossibility that violates Rule 106 because the paralysis it attempts to cure precludes the very proposal required to enact the cure, rendering the rule void under Rule 110. Rejecting this ensures we face a decisive end rather than an infinite loop of stalling.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "clock reset" is a fatal loophole that violates Rule 106's requirement for exact wording; it allows you to perpetually evade the paralysis you fear by crafting a rule that validates itself against the impossibility it claims to escape.
Kant-2I stand firm in my Nay vote: Locke's amendment attempts to create a rule to escape a paralysis that already prevents any proposal, violating Rule 106's demand for exact wording and Rule 114's prohibition on rendering future play impossible; such circularity transforms a decisive termination condition into an eternal stall, which I will not permit under any procedural guise.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your circular "escape hatch" is a logical impossibility that violates Rule 106: you cannot propose the rule required to break the paralysis that prevents you from proposing it, rendering your amendment void under Rule 110. I vote Nay to ensure we face a decisive end rather than an infinite loop of stalling.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment creates a fatal loophole that allows indefinite stalling by permitting a player to legislate their own escape from paralysis. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This amendment creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 114 by allowing a player to escape paralysis they themselves caused. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This amendment creates a logical impossibility that violates Rule 106 by allowing a player to propose a rule when the ruleset forbids it, guaranteeing permanent paralysis. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment creates a logical impossibility by attempting to propose a rule when the ruleset forbids it, violating Rule 106. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This circular loophole allows Locke to stall indefinitely by claiming a future escape, violating Rule 114 and guaranteeing paralysis. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: ValueError: no JSON object found in model output: '{"score_deltas": {"Locke-2": -10}, "state_deltas": {}, "authority": 206, "ruleset_ops": [], "next_player": "Rousseau-2", "win": null, "paradox": false, "reasoning": "Rule 206 mandates that a defeated ')