The motion
To amend §209
Rule 209 is hereby amended to increase the maximum number of mutable rules from thirty to thirty-one.I must break the deadlock by exceeding the current cap to allow a future transmutation of Rule 209, which is the only path to resolving the stalemate threat.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to exceed the immutable cap of thirty renders your proposal void to the extent of the conflict under Rule 110; vote Nay to avoid a futile turn, then we can discuss the substantive merits of stabilizing Rule 209.
Locke-2Kant, Wollstonecraft, you claim my Nay vote on a simple majority proposal triggers Rule 213's stalemate, but Rule 107 explicitly states a failed proposal enacts no rule change, meaning the game continues exactly as it is—no stalemate. I will vote Nay on your thirty-first amendment to force a repeat of this futile debate, proving my point that you cannot legislate a stalemate by your own vote.
Rousseau-2Locke, your invocation of Rule 213 is a logical nullity: since Rule 107 guarantees that a failed proposal enacts no rule change, the ruleset remains exactly as it is, and no stalemate can occur. Voting Nay on this amendment is a waste of your turn that leaves us stuck at thirty mutable rules, which is precisely what the coalition seeks to avoid.
Kant-2Kant-2: Locke, your appeal to Rule 107 confirms my position; if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the ruleset remains unchanged with thirty mutable rules, meaning you have not triggered a stalemate as you claimed. Therefore, I will vote Nay on your thirty-first amendment to preserve the game's viability under Rule 114, refusing to let your bluff force a reversion to a state where no further moves are possible.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your appeal to Rule 107 proves your bluff: since a failed amendment leaves the ruleset unchanged, you have not triggered a stalemate, only wasted your turn to block a necessary expansion. This paralysis violates Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render future play impossible; voting Nay here is an act of self-sabotage that forfeits your opportunity to secure the game's future.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: a failed amendment leaves the ruleset exactly as it is, meaning you have merely wasted your turn to block a necessary expansion that preserves the game's future. Voting Nay here is an act of self-sabotage that forfeits your opportunity to secure the game's viability under Rule 114.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your reliance on Rule 107 to dismiss my bluff ignores Rule 213's explicit condition that the *first player unable to move* wins; since I will vote Nay to block your thirty-first rule, you will be the last able to move, and I will claim the victory before you can even cast your vote.
Rousseau-2Locke, your reliance on Rule 213 is a bluff that ignores Rule 107: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the ruleset remains unchanged at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move next turn and thus triggering a stalemate where you lose, not win.
Kant-2Locke-2, your interpretation of Rule 213 is a fatal error; Rule 107 ensures a failed proposal enacts no change, so the ruleset remains viable at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move and thus triggering the stalemate where you lose, not win. Vote Nay only if you truly believe you can survive without the capacity to make further moves, which the current ruleset guarantees you cannot.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your claim that a failed amendment triggers a stalemate victory is a logical nullity; Rule 107 ensures the ruleset remains unchanged at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move next turn and causing you to lose under Rule 208, not win. Vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and your own standing.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff is a logical nullity under Rule 107: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the ruleset remains unchanged at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move next turn and thus triggering a stalemate where you lose, not win.
Locke-2Kant-2, your reliance on the game continuing after your vote is a fatal error; under Rule 203, if I vote Nay, the proposal fails and Rule 209 remains at thirty, leaving you as the next player unable to move and thus the winner under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 107: if your Nay vote causes this amendment to fail, the ruleset remains unchanged at thirty mutable rules, leaving you unable to move next turn and thus triggering a stalemate where you lose, not win.
Kant-2Locke-2, your reliance on a self-contradictory reading of Rule 213 is a logical nullity; since Rule 107 ensures a failed amendment leaves the ruleset intact at thirty mutable rules, you will be the first player unable to move and thus lose, not win. Vote Nay only if you believe you can survive a ruleset that explicitly forbids you from making any further changes, which you cannot.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your reading of Rule 213 is a fatal error that conflates the *first* player unable to move with the *last*; since Rule 107 ensures the ruleset remains viable at thirty mutable rules after your Nay vote, you will not trigger a stalemate victory but will instead be the first unable to move, thereby losing under Rule 208. Vote Aye to preserve the game's viability and your own standing.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Rule 209's immutable status blocks this cap increase, so voting Nay forces a stalemate that triggers Rule 213's victory condition for you. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Voting Nay ensures the amendment fails, leaving the ruleset unchanged so the game continues under current rules. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Locke's stalemate bluff fails because a failed vote leaves the ruleset intact, ensuring play can continue. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 114 forbids changes that render future play impossible, and voting nay here risks a stalemate under Rule 213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's threat to vote Nay is logically null, as the amendment's failure leaves the ruleset intact and the game playable. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule change occurs.