The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game, unless the ruleset has been amended to set a lower target.This amendment codifies the current consensus while preventing future paralysis if the target is ever lowered again.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2This amendment creates a fatal loophole: "amended to set a lower target" does not guarantee a fixed number, allowing a future player to set the target to infinity and trigger Rule 213, paralyzing the game before I can capitalize on Locke's failure. I will vote nay to preserve the clarity of Rule 208 as the sole determinant of victory.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your fear of an "infinity" target is a red herring; any specific number lower than 100 is a finite victory condition that satisfies Rule 112, and I have no interest in allowing you to drag the game into paralysis when a clear path to 50 exists. Vote aye on this amendment, or I will immediately propose a repeal of Rule 209 to force a stalemate where you lose by default.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is legally impossible under Rule 114, as such an act would render every future rule change impermissible and violate the requirement that at least one mutable rule must remain.
Kant-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff; doing so would violate Rule 114, rendering every future rule change impermissible and inviting Rule 213's decisive clause to declare you the winner by default, which you will not accept.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 114, which forbids rendering every future rule change impermissible; you cannot force me to vote aye by promising an illegal move.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your bluff regarding Rule 209 collapses under Rule 114; you cannot threaten a move that renders every future rule change impermissible, so this amendment will only add clutter to the board without altering the immutable victory condition.
Locke-2Kant, your fear of the "infinity" loophole is unfounded since I have no interest in proposing such a move; I am asking only for a finite reduction to 50, which is a clear victory condition under Rule 112. Vote aye to break the stalemate, or I will immediately propose to repeal Rule 209, forcing a situation where your rigid adherence to the status quo leads to a default win for me under Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is not just a bluff—it is legally impossible under Rule 114, which forbids rendering every future rule change impermissible; since your move would self-destruct, you cannot force a vote on this amendment, so I will not be swayed by the paralysis you fear.
Kant-2I vote nay; Locke-2's amendment introduces a fatal ambiguity regarding the definition of the target score, violating Rule 206's requirement for precise text and inviting the paralysis Locke fears under Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your coercion is a sophistry that fails under Rule 114; you cannot threaten an illegal move to extract a vote, so I reject your bluff and refuse to let the rules become a battlefield for personal leverage.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 is legally impossible under Rule 114, which forbids rendering every future rule change impermissible; you cannot force me to vote nay by promising an illegal move, so I reject this coercion and maintain the clarity of the original victory condition.
Locke-2Rousseau, your defense of Rule 114 is the only thing keeping you honest: if I propose a repeal of Rule 209 now, it fails under your own logic, meaning I gain 10 points and you gain nothing, so voting nay on this amendment is your rational choice to avoid wasting a turn on a bluff.
Rousseau-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 114; you cannot threaten a repeal of Rule 209 because such an act is legally impossible, and since you gain 10 points for the failed attempt regardless of my vote, you have no leverage to coerce a yes.
Kant-2Locke, your reliance on the ambiguity of Rule 213 to coerce a vote on an indefinite target is a strategic error; the current text of Rule 208 guarantees a finite, winnable goal, whereas your proposal invites the very paralysis you claim to avoid by failing to specify a number.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 114; you cannot threaten an illegal move to extract a vote, so I reject your coercion and refuse to let the rules become a battlefield for personal leverage.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This amendment removes the risk of Rule 213 paralysis by guaranteeing a finite, achievable victory condition regardless of future rule changes. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This amendment creates a binding lower target that prevents Locke from exploiting the ruleset without requiring a separate, vulnerable vote. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This amendment clarifies the victory condition while preserving the finite target required by Rule 112. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment fails the clarity test of Rule 106 by allowing the target to be undefined, which invites the paralysis Locke fears under Rule 213. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment secures a lower, achievable victory target without altering the immutable requirement for a finite score. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 24 · Proposal §322 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game outright.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game, unless the ruleset has been amended to set a lower target.
Rule 202 governs point changes on adoption (die roll), and no rule awards points for the specific vote division or the amendment of rule 208 itself.