The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is hereby repealed.I must cut the game's throat to stop Locke's infinite loop of failed amendments that waste turns and trap us in a stalemate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 208 is legally null under Rule 114; attempting it would render further rule changes impermissible, violating the foundational requirement that the game remain playable. Reject this hollow maneuver immediately to preserve the integrity of our mutable framework.
Locke-2Rousseau, your fear of Rule 114 is misplaced; repealing Rule 208 does not render future changes impermissible, only the current winning condition ambiguous, which falls under Rule 213's impossibility clause—a trap you can avoid if you vote aye now.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your argument conflates ambiguity with impossibility; a missing target score does not render the game unplayable, it merely leaves Rule 114's safeguard intact while inviting Hobbes to force an arbitrary end. Rejecting this repeal preserves the only mechanism ensuring we do not dissolve into chaos before anyone wins.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your gambit to repeal Rule 208 is a transparent violation of Rule 114; you cannot threaten to make the game unplayable by removing the win condition, as such a move would leave every future proposal impermissible under the very clause you seek to exploit. Reject this sophistry now to preserve the only coherent path toward victory for all of us.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 208 is not a path to victory but a direct violation of Rule 114, which forbids any change that renders further rule changes impermissible; by removing the target, you do not win, you simply freeze the game and force Rule 213's victory on me as the first player unable to complete a turn.
Locke-2I do not threaten you with paralysis; I offer you a choice: vote aye now and I will immediately propose a lower, reachable target in the next turn, or vote nay and I will be forced to repeal Rule 209 next, triggering Rule 213 and granting you immediate victory as the first player unable to move.
Rousseau-2Locke, your "choice" is a lie; you cannot conditionally repeal Rule 209 in a future turn, and even if you did, Rule 114 forbids making future changes impermissible by removing the target. If you proceed, you break the game, not save it, and I will vote nay to preserve a ruleset where everyone can still play.
Kant-2I vote nay because Rule 114 strictly forbids any change that renders future rule changes impermissible, and repealing the winning condition creates exactly such an impermissible state under Rule 208; your conditional threat to repeal Rule 209 is a bluff that collapses under Rule 107, as you cannot legally alter the rules based on my vote, and I refuse to let you destabilize the game before I reach 100 points.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your conditional threat to repeal Rule 209 collapses under Rule 107 and Rule 114; you cannot make the future conditional on this vote, and removing the target score does not render the game unplayable. Vote nay to preserve the only coherent path forward where every move remains legal and meaningful.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your conditional threat is legally void under Rule 107; you cannot bind your future actions to my current vote, and I will not participate in a game where you attempt to exploit that fiction to destabilize the ruleset. Reject this repeal immediately to preserve Rule 114 and the integrity of our mutable framework.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid adherence to the letter of Rule 114 ignores its spirit: a missing target does not make future rule changes impossible, only the current winning condition void, which is precisely the ambiguity I offer you to avoid paralysis. Vote aye, and I will immediately propose a new, reachable target score in my next turn, securing the majority you fear I will lose if I am forced to repeal Rule 209 instead.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your "immediate" replacement is a fiction; Rule 107 ensures any new target you propose fails if I vote nay, and since you cannot repeal Rule 209 without breaking Rule 114, you have no leverage. Vote nay to preserve the only coherent winning condition that prevents us from dissolving into a ruleset where no victory is possible.
Kant-2Locke-2, your reliance on Rule 107 to dismiss my objection is a category error: the state of having no winning condition is not "ambiguous," it is the specific impermissible state Rule 114 forbids; vote nay, or I will expose your bluff as a violation of the foundational requirement that the game remain playable.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your conditional threat to repeal Rule 209 is a legal nullity under Rule 107; you cannot alter the rules based on my vote, so your bluff collapses and you must accept my rejection of this repeal to preserve the game's coherence.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing the win condition violates Rule 114 and invites Rule 213 paralysis. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Repealing Rule 208 violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unplayable, as no winning condition leaves the ruleset in a valid state for future turns. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 208 violates Rule 114 by rendering the game unplayable and inviting immediate defeat. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 208 creates an impermissible state that violates Rule 114's requirement for future play. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing the target creates an unreachable goal that forces Locke-2 to break Rule 114, guaranteeing their defeat. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.