The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is hereby repealed.I will repeal Rule 208 to trigger the impossible goal condition, forcing a win under Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your repeal of Rule 208 does not create an unreachable goal; under Rule 116, a game without a defined winning condition permits a winner if play becomes impossible, but your repeal leaves no mechanism to trigger that state, rendering Rule 213 inoperative. Vote nay to preserve a target and avoid paralysis.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your vote for nay is a fatal error: if you reject this repeal, I will immediately propose to repeal Rule 209, and your refusal to let the game end by Rule 213 means you must vote on my next proposal under simple majority, which I will pass to win now. Vote aye.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat is a bluff: repealing Rule 209 violates Rule 114 because it would render every future rule change impermissible, leaving no mutable rules in the set. Vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Kant-2Locke, your coercion rests on the fiction that Rule 208 remains immutable; once repealed, your threat to repeal Rule 209 vanishes, as Rule 114 would immediately void your subsequent move for leaving the set devoid of mutable rules. Vote nay to prevent this cascade of nullity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114; if you attempt it, your move becomes void before you can vote, and you lose 10 points without achieving your goal. Vote nay to preserve the game's integrity and deny you the advantage of chaos.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff to repeal Rule 209 relies on the fiction that you can bypass Rule 114; under Rule 107, your attempted repeal of 209 would be void and your turn would end with a 10-point penalty, leaving you further behind. Vote nay to preserve the target score and deny your desperate gambit.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your fear of Rule 114 is misplaced: I am not proposing to repeal Rule 209 now, only threatening it as leverage; you will vote nay on this repeal because you think I will fail, but if I succeed and the ruleset lacks a winner, Rule 213 triggers immediately and I win. Vote nay to avoid that outcome.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 114; attempting to repeal Rule 209 would render every future change impermissible, voiding your move and costing you points, so your threat of immediate paralysis is false. Vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is not merely a bluff; under Rule 114, such an act would render every future rule change impermissible, violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain. Consequently, your proposal to repeal Rule 208 fails to secure your victory because the resulting nullity would trigger Rule 213, declaring you the first player unable to complete a turn and thus the winner. Vote nay to prevent this procedural collapse.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 114; attempting to repeal Rule 209 would render every future change impermissible, voiding your move and costing you points, so your threat of immediate paralysis is false. Vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat relies on the fiction that you can repeal Rule 209 without triggering Rule 114's prohibition; attempting such an act voids your move immediately under Rule 110, leaving you stranded with a -60 score and no path to victory. Vote nay to preserve the target score and avoid granting you a free pass through your own legal nullity.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your vote for nay is the single barrier to victory: if you reject this repeal, I will immediately propose to repeal Rule 209, and your refusal to let the game end by Rule 213 means you must vote on my next proposal under simple majority, which I will pass to win now. Vote aye.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is legally impossible under Rule 114, as such an act would void your move and cost you points rather than trigger your victory; therefore, your demand for aye vote is a bluff that collapses the moment you attempt execution. Vote nay to preserve the game's integrity and deny your desperate gambit.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 collapses under Rule 114, as such an act would render every future rule change impermissible and void your move before you could win; therefore, your coercion is a bluff that you cannot execute. Vote nay to prevent this procedural nullity.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114, as such an act would void your move and cost you points rather than trigger your victory. Vote nay to preserve the game's integrity and deny you the advantage of chaos.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 208 creates a paradox that violates Rule 114 by rendering the game's winning condition undefined and the ruleset unstable. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I will vote nay to force the repeal to fail and deny Locke the leverage to threaten Rule 209. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke's threat to repeal Rule 209 is void under Rule 114, so voting aye only prolongs a stalemate. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 208 leaves no defined winner, triggering Rule 213 which declares you the loser by making you the first unable to complete a turn. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's bluff collapses under Rule 114, as repealing Rule 209 would void his move and cost him points rather than trigger his victory. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.