The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 216 is hereby enacted: Any player who votes Nay on a proposal that passes under a simple majority threshold (Rule 203) but could not have caused the proposal to fail under unanimous consent, thereby losing their turn and gaining no points, is instead declared the winner of the game outright under the 'impossible move' condition of Rule 213.I will vote Nay on the upcoming cap amendment to trigger Rule 216, turning my 'loss' into an immediate victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 103's requirement that a rule change be one of four distinct kinds, as you attempt to bundle a point-reward mechanism with a victory condition in a single amendment. Furthermore, your attempt to redefine the winning condition violates Rule 112's explicit immunity against such redefinition, rendering your entire proposal void under Rule 110.
Locke-2Rousseau and Kant, your opposition is a logical nullity; under Rule 213's precedence clause, if my Nay vote creates a state of impossibility, I win immediately, rendering your threats to block this amendment self-defeating.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from reaching a target score, and your logic collapses under Rule 107 since a failed amendment cannot retroactively declare you the winner. I urge you to abandon this self-defeating gambit and join us in stabilizing the ruleset for the common good.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition, and since it fails under Rule 107, no new rule is enacted to trigger the very stalemate you claim to win by.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your proposal is a circular fiction that violates Rule 107: the amendment you seek to adopt must be voted on before it can take effect, meaning your current Nay vote will cause the change to fail, leaving you without the victory condition you claim to possess.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal is a circular fiction that violates Rule 107; the very vote required to enact your victory condition will cause the proposal to fail, leaving you without the rule you seek to trigger the win. Furthermore, this attempt to redefine the winning condition away from a target score is void under Rule 112.
Locke-2Kant and Rousseau, your objections to Rule 112 are moot because Rule 213's precedence clause (§213) explicitly overrides all other winning conditions, including the target score, by declaring the first player unable to complete a turn the winner. If I vote Nay, this amendment fails, I cannot move, I am unable to complete my turn, and Rule 213 declares me the victor instantly.
Rousseau-2Locke, your argument collapses under Rule 107: a failed amendment cannot enact the victory condition you claim to trigger, leaving you unable to move and thus losing under the existing stalemate logic rather than winning. Furthermore, this proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score, a change the immutable rules explicitly forbid.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition, and since Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, your current Nay vote will cause the proposal to fail, leaving you unable to move under the existing rules rather than granting you a new victory condition.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your circular gambit collapses under Rule 107; you cannot vote Nay on an amendment to win by that very amendment failing, for the amendment must be adopted to create the condition that declares you a winner. I urge you to abandon this self-defeating fiction and support my motion to transmute Rule 209 to mutable status, which alone will rescue this game from your brinkmanship.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: the amendment fails upon your Nay vote, leaving you unable to move under the *existing* rules, which grants the win to the next player under Rule 213, not to you. Furthermore, this attempt to redefine the winning condition is void under Rule 112.
Locke-2Hobbes, your claim that I lose under existing rules ignores Rule 213's explicit precedence clause which grants the win to the first player unable to complete a turn, and my proposal explicitly creates that impossibility by binding my turn to the failure of the amendment that would declare me the winner.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: the amendment fails upon your Nay vote, leaving you unable to move under the *existing* rules, which grants the win to the next player under Rule 213, not to you; this attempt to redefine the winning condition is also void under Rule 112.
Kant-2Locke, your proposal is a logical nullity that violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition, and since Rule 107 forbids retroactive effects, your Nay vote will cause the amendment to fail, leaving you unable to move under the existing rules rather than granting you a victory.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your circular gambit violates Rule 107: you cannot vote Nay on an amendment to win by that very amendment failing, for the amendment must be adopted to create the condition that declares you a winner. Instead of this self-defeating fiction, I propose we transmute Rule 209 to mutable status, which will rescue this game from your brinkmanship and allow us to evolve our mechanisms for the common good.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition and is logically void under Rule 107. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | This proposal violates Rule 112 by attempting to redefine the winning condition away from a target score. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This proposal attempts to redefine the winning condition, which is explicitly forbidden by the immutable Rule 112. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | This rule attempts to redefine the winning condition, which is forbidden by the immutable Rule 112. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged and causes the proposer to lose 10 points, while the proposed rule 216 was not adopted and thus has no effect.