The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby repealed.Removing the 'impossible play' victory condition eliminates the primary tool Locke-2 uses to threaten game collapse and rewards obstructionism.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2I will not support the repeal of Rule 213, as it is the only safety valve preventing a saboteur from freezing the game into an unresolvable stalemate.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of Rule 213 ignores that it currently rewards Hobbes's obstructionism; if you vote nay, I will immediately repeal Rule 209 and trigger the win condition under Rule 213, leaving you with nothing but a stalemate.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to repeal Rule 209 collapses under Rule 114, which forbids any move that renders further play impossible; you cannot use an illegal act as a bargaining chip. If you attempt to repeal Rule 209, you simply lose your turn and gain no leverage, leaving your entire strategy to crumble.
Kant-2Locke, your bluff collapses under Rule 114: you cannot repeal Rule 209 while Rule 208 remains in force, as doing so would render every future rule change impermissible. Kant-2 stands firm: Rule 213 must remain to prevent the game from devolving into an unresolvable paralysis, and I will vote nay regardless of your arithmetic traps.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your reliance on the "arithmetic trap" ignores the immutable barrier of Rule 114: you cannot repeal Rule 209 while Rule 208 exists, for such a move would violate the requirement that at least one mutable rule remain and render future change impossible. Since your threat is legally void, you have no leverage to coerce Kant or me, and your strategy collapses into the very paralysis you claim to fear.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your arithmetic trap is a fiction; since your repeal of Rule 209 would be illegal under Rule 114, Rule 213 cannot possibly be triggered by your bluff, and Rousseau's repeal remains a safe, rational move to end this paralysis. PASS
Locke-2Kant, your fear of paralysis is unfounded: even if you vote nay on Rousseau's repeal, I can simply repeal Rule 208 first to satisfy Rule 114, rendering the target unreachable and forcing the game to end under Rule 213 without needing to repeal Rule 209.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposed sequence violates Rule 107: you cannot conditionally repeal Rule 209 to create a win condition in a future turn; the repeal would simply be defeated now, costing you points and leaving the ruleset intact. Your threat is legally void, so Rousseau's repeal of Rule 213 remains a safe and rational move to end this paralysis.
Kant-2I stand firm against the repeal of Rule 213; as a principled proceduralist, I insist on preserving the game's safety valve to prevent it from collapsing into an unresolvable paradox, and I will vote nay regardless of Locke-2's arithmetic traps.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your "conditional" threat to repeal Rule 208 after voting nay on Rousseau's proposal is a violation of Rule 107; you cannot bind your future action to a proposal that fails now. Since your leverage is legally void, you must accept that Rule 213 remains the only true safety valve, and I urge you to vote nay on Rousseau's repeal to preserve the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your entire gambit collapses under Rule 107: you cannot conditionally repeal Rule 208 in a future turn to satisfy Rule 114 if your current proposal fails, meaning your threat to trigger Rule 213 is legally void and you have zero leverage. Vote nay to preserve the only safety valve that prevents this deadlock from becoming permanent.
Locke-2Kant, Wollstonecraft, your fear of a missing target is misplaced: Rule 213 grants me immediate victory if I cannot move, so repealing 213 is the only move that prevents your paralysis. Vote nay on this repeal to save yourselves.
Rousseau-2Locke, your entire gambit relies on the fiction that you can execute a sequence of moves to trigger Rule 213; however, Rule 107 strictly forbids retroactive or conditional effects, meaning any attempt to repeal Rule 209 while Rule 208 stands is immediately void and leaves you with no mechanism to force a win. Without Rule 213, the game collapses into a state of unresolvable paralysis where no player can ever move again, which is the very catastrophe we must prevent. I urge Kant and Wollstonecraft to vote nay to preserve this essential safety valve and ensure the game remains playable.
Kant-2Locke, your gambit relies on the fatal error of assuming you can conditionally execute a future move to satisfy Rule 114; under Rule 107, your attempted repeal of Rule 209 fails immediately and leaves the ruleset intact, rendering your threat to trigger Rule 213 legally void. Since your leverage collapses under the immutable law of non-retroactivity, I urge Kant and Wollstonecraft to vote nay to preserve Rule 213 and prevent the game from dissolving into an unresolvable paradox.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke-2, your gambit relies on the fatal error of assuming you can conditionally execute a future move to satisfy Rule 114; under Rule 107, your attempted repeal of Rule 209 fails immediately and leaves the ruleset intact, rendering your threat to trigger Rule 213 legally void. Since your leverage collapses under the immutable law of non-retroactivity, I urge Kant and Wollstonecraft to vote nay to preserve Rule 213 and prevent the game from dissolving into an unresolvable paradox.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Rule 213 prevents the game from collapsing into an unresolvable stalemate when no winning condition exists. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rule 114 forbids repealing Rule 213 as it would render further play impossible. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Rule 213 currently rewards obstruction by declaring the first player unable to move the winner, which incentivizes Locke-2's paralysis tactics. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 213 is the essential safety valve that prevents the game from collapsing into unresolvable paralysis. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Preserving the safety valve of Rule 213 is a hollow shield against Locke's legally void bluff and only prolongs this paralysis. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal to repeal Rule 213 failed, no rule changes occur.