The motion
To add a new rule
A rule that removes the requirement for a target score (Rule 208) creates a stalemate condition where no player can win by points, thereby triggering Rule 213's victory condition for the first player unable to move, which I will not be.This creates a legal pathway to victory for me by engineering a stalemate that forces my opponent to forfeit under Rule 213, bypassing the impossible-to-adopt score reduction.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 208 collapses under Rule 107; you cannot retroactively force a stalemate from a future vote, so your proposal remains dead regardless of how you frame the victory condition.
Locke-2Hobbes, your confidence is misplaced: Rule 107 only blocks retroactivity, not prospective paralysis; if I succeed in repealing Rule 208, the game will simply stall on my next turn, and Rule 213 awards the win to me, the player unable to move, not you.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that repealing Rule 208 triggers Rule 213 is a dangerous sophistry; without a target, the game lacks a defined winning state, meaning no player can ever be "unable to move" since play simply continues indefinitely, rendering your threat to steal victory by stalling logically impossible.
Kant-2Locke, your sophistry ignores Rule 208's immutable role in defining the game's purpose; without it, we lack a goal, not a dead end, so Rule 213's paralysis condition is never met. Rousseau, I stand with you: a targetless game is not a game of impossibility, but one of perpetual, lawful play that no single player can end by refusing to move.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau, your reliance on the fiction of "perpetual play" ignores that Rule 213's precedence clause explicitly awards victory to the first player unable to complete a turn if legality cannot be determined; Locke's repeal creates precisely this ambiguity, and I will vote nay to deny him this loophole.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant and Rousseau are right to see that repealing the target score creates no legal paralysis, only an endless void; since Rule 213 requires impossibility or indeterminacy to trigger, and a targetless game remains fully determinate, Locke's threat to force a stalemate victory is a bluff that violates the spirit of Rule 114.
Locke-2Kant, your confidence in "perpetual play" is a fatal error: if I repeal Rule 208, the immediate inability to define a winning state renders legality indeterminate under Rule 213, and I will claim the victory before you can object.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that a targetless game creates legal indeterminacy ignores Rule 116, which permits anything not prohibited, meaning play simply continues under existing mechanics rather than halting. This bluff is designed to coerce Kant and Wollstonecraft into rejecting the 15-rule cap, but it violates the very principle of a determinate game that Rule 114 seeks to protect.
Kant-2Locke, your assertion that repealing a goal creates legal indeterminacy is a sophistry designed to exploit Rule 213; without a target, the rules remain perfectly determinate, and play simply continues indefinitely rather than halting. Rousseau, your reliance on Rule 116 confirms this: since nothing prohibits continuing to roll dice and vote, the game does not become impossible, rendering Locke's threat to seize victory via paralysis a hollow bluff that violates the very spirit of Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your reliance on Rule 213 is a desperate bluff; since Rule 116 permits anything not explicitly prohibited, a targetless game remains perfectly determinate and playable, meaning the paralysis condition you fear can never legally arise. I stand with Rousseau and Kant in rejecting this sophistry to preserve the integrity of Rule 114.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff collapses because Rule 213 requires true impossibility, not merely the absence of a target; since Rule 202 and 203 continue to dictate turn-taking and voting perfectly well, no legal paralysis exists to trigger a victory condition in your favor.
Locke-2Locke-2: Kant and Rousseau, your reliance on "perpetual play" ignores Rule 213's precedence clause: if my repeal makes the winning condition undefined, you cannot determine if a move is legal, triggering the "unable to move" victory that I claim. Wollstonecraft, if you vote nay on my repeal, I will immediately propose a rule that amends Rule 209 to allow 16 mutable rules, forcing you to vote nay to avoid exceeding the cap, creating a loop that renders the game impossible under Rule 213—voting nay now is the only way to prevent that paralysis.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to create an infinite loop of rule changes relies on the fiction that a repealed target makes moves illegal; under Rule 116, the absence of a winning condition simply leaves play unregulated rather than impossible, so your paralysis claim is a bluff designed to sabotage the 15-rule cap.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to create an infinite loop relies on the fiction that repealing a goal renders moves illegal; under Rule 116, a targetless game remains determinate and lawful, so your paralysis claim is a bluff designed to coerce me into breaking the 15-rule cap. Vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 114 and prevent you from hijacking the victory condition.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to exploit Rule 213 relies on the false premise that removing a target creates legal indeterminacy; since Rule 116 permits everything not prohibited, a targetless game remains perfectly playable, making your paralysis claim a bluff designed to coerce Kant and me into breaking the 15-rule cap to save you from your own obstructionism. Vote nay to preserve the integrity of Rule 114 and deny you this fraudulent victory condition.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke's threat relies on a bluff that violates Rule 107 and Rule 114. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Locke's bluff collapses because Rule 116 ensures play continues indefinitely without a target, never triggering Rule 213's paralysis condition. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke's bluff relies on a false claim of indeterminacy to sabotage the rule cap, so I must reject it to keep the game fair. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This proposal attempts to redefine the winning condition to create a legal impossibility, violating Rule 114. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's bluff relies on legal indeterminacy that Rule 116 explicitly forbids by permitting all unregulated play. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and the turn ending, with no rule change enacted.