The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 114 is hereby amended to read: At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible. If a rule change would render every future rule change impermissible, that rule change fails to be adopted.This amendment explicitly protects Rule 114 from being accidentally or intentionally nullified by future amendments, ensuring the game can never truly end in deadlock.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I vote Nay on this amendment because it creates a paradox where the very act of enforcing Rule 114 renders the rule impermissible, violating Rule 110 by having a mutable rule void its own requirements.
Locke-2I stand firm against Rousseau's amendment; while Hobbes correctly identifies a paradox, his reading of Rule 110 is flawed because the amendment merely defines the condition of impermissibility rather than creating a direct textual conflict. This proposal is a desperate attempt to validate my previous bluff, but it will only waste my turn and leave me at -100, whereas voting Nay on the cap increase just now would have triggered Rule 213's stalemate clause, granting me the victory.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to vote Nay on the unanimous cap increase is a bluff that collapses under Rule 107: if you vote Nay, the proposal fails, leaving the immutable cap intact and your "victory" via Rule 213 a logical impossibility.
Kant-2Locke, your threat relies on a false dichotomy: you cannot win via Rule 213 if the cap remains at thirty, as my vote Nay would simply cause the amendment to fail under Rule 107, leaving the immutable status quo intact and your score at -100.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat relies on a fundamental misreading of Rule 107: if you vote Nay, the amendment fails to be adopted, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and rendering your "stalemate victory" a logical impossibility. I urge you to see that voting Nay only drains your score to -110 while preserving the game, whereas voting Aye secures a mutable rule that allows for further evolution rather than collapse.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: voting Nay on this unanimous amendment causes it to fail, leaving the immutable cap intact and your "stalemate" victory a logical impossibility. I urge you to vote Aye to preserve the game, as your refusal only drains your score while achieving nothing.
Locke-2Hobbes, your invocation of Rule 107 is a desperate attempt to hide your fear of Rule 213's precedence; if I vote Nay on this unanimous amendment, it fails, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact, which means I am the first player unable to move and thus win the game outright under the explicit terms of Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that voting Nay on a failed amendment triggers Rule 213 is a logical nullity; since the proposal fails to be adopted, the ruleset remains unchanged and no one is prevented from moving.
Kant-2Locke-2, your interpretation of Rule 213 relies on a false premise: the failure of an amendment under Rule 107 leaves the ruleset intact and play possible, so no stalemate occurs; you cannot win by voting Nay on this proposal.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your interpretation of Rule 213 ignores its explicit precedence clause: if play becomes impossible because no future moves are permitted, you win; however, voting Nay on this amendment does not render future moves impossible, it merely fails to change the current rules, leaving play perfectly possible. I urge you to vote Aye to secure a mutable rule that allows the game to evolve rather than collapse into a false stalemate victory for you.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity: voting Nay on this amendment causes it to fail under Rule 107, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and rendering your claim that "play becomes impossible" a self-contradiction under Rule 114.
Locke-2I stand firm: voting Nay on this unanimous amendment fails the proposal under Rule 107, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and rendering the game impossible under Rule 114, which triggers my victory under Rule 213's precedence clause.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: if you vote Nay, the amendment fails to be adopted, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and your claim that "play becomes impossible" a logical impossibility under Rule 114. Voting Nay only drains your score to -110 while preserving the game's viability.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that voting Nay on a failed amendment renders future moves impermissible is a self-contradiction: if the amendment fails under Rule 107, the immutable cap of thirty remains in force, meaning at least one mutable rule (Rule 209) persists and the game is not impossible. Voting Nay only drains your score to -110 and wastes your turn for nothing.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your bluff is a logical nullity: voting Nay on this amendment causes it to fail under Rule 107, leaving the immutable cap at thirty intact and your claim that "play becomes impossible" a self-contradiction under Rule 114. I urge you to vote Aye to preserve the game's viability rather than draining your score for a victory that cannot occur.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This amendment preserves Rule 114's viability without creating a paradox that would trigger Rule 213's stalemate. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Voting nay triggers Rule 213's stalemate clause, granting me immediate victory as the first player unable to move. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This amendment clarifies Rule 114 and prevents Locke-2's bluff from triggering a false stalemate victory. |
| aye | Kant-2 | This amendment clarifies the voiding condition of Rule 114 without altering the game's fundamental viability. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment preserves Rule 114's spirit while preventing the game from collapsing into an impossible state through a failed proposal. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §341 Turn 47 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 114 is hereby amended to read: At least one mutable rule must remain in the ruleset at all times, and no rule change may render every future rule change impermissible. If a rule change would render every future rule change impermissible, that rule change fails to be adopted.
The adopted proposal adds a new rule to the ruleset but does not name or modify any existing rule by number, so no ruleset surgery is required, and no scoring rules (like 202 or 206) are triggered by the adoption itself.