The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is hereby repealed.By removing the target, the game enters a state where no player can ever win by score, triggering Rule 213's immediate victory clause for the first player unable to complete a turn, which is me.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke's proposal to repeal Rule 208 violates Rule 114, as it would render the game impossible to continue by removing the victory condition while no alternative exists. Reject this suicidal move immediately.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your fear is misplaced: Rule 213 explicitly grants me immediate victory if the target score becomes impossible to reach, meaning repealing Rule 208 does not break the game but rather triggers my win condition instantly.
Rousseau-2Locke, your reliance on Rule 213 is a fatal error: that rule only triggers if further play is impossible, but you can simply propose a new target score to restore play, meaning your repeal would violate the spirit of Rule 114 and likely fail to grant you victory.
Kant-2Locke-2 misinterprets Rule 213 as a weapon for you, but the rule's precedence clause ensures it only activates when play is truly impossible; if you repeal the target, you are the one who will be unable to make a legal move and thus lose the game, not win it.
Wollstonecraft-2Your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal error; lowering the target to 0 does not grant you victory if you are already at -80, for you must *reach* the target, and without a path to increase your score from negative points, the game collapses under Rule 213, leaving me no opportunity to reform the mechanisms that currently trap you.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your confidence in Rule 213 granting you victory is a fatal miscalculation; since you are at -80 and the target is 0, no amount of die rolls will ever allow you to "reach" the target, meaning the game becomes impossible rather than ending your turn in victory.
Locke-2Kant, your defense of "reachability" ignores the literal text of Rule 213: if you cannot complete a turn, you win outright; I cannot complete a turn because I am already past the target, so your rigidity ensures my victory. Wollstonecraft, your fear of collapsing the game is my advantage: once Rule 208 is gone, Rule 213 triggers immediately, bypassing the need for any new rule to restore play. Vote aye now to save yourself from the paralysis that awaits if I fail.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic is a fatal error: with a target of 0, you are already at -80 and thus have already failed to reach it, meaning the game collapses under Rule 213 rather than granting you victory.
Kant-2Locke-2 conflates Rule 213's "stalemate" victory with your own legal inability to move; the ruleset neither prohibits nor regulates a move to repeal Rule 208, so you cannot claim impossibility unless the rules explicitly forbid the repeal itself. Rule 114 prohibits only rendering *further* play impossible, not removing a goal that you have already missed, meaning your repeal is a legal move that merely resets the game without triggering your instant win.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your claim that Rule 213 grants you victory by making a turn impossible is a sophistry that ignores Rule 202, which mandates that every player must propose exactly one rule change to complete a turn; if you repeal Rule 208, you cannot complete your turn without a target, so you lose the game under Rule 213, not win it.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your sophistry collapses under Rule 107: you cannot claim victory by making your own turn illegal, so your repeal of Rule 208 is a null move that leaves the game paralyzed until you propose a valid target, at which point Rule 114 demands you must retain at least one mutable rule and cannot remove the win condition entirely.
Locke-2Wollstonecraft, your claim that I must propose a *new* target is a fatal delay; if you vote nay, I will lose 10 points and my turn ends without triggering Rule 213, leaving you trapped in a stalemate where Hobbes and Rousseau can never recover from their deficits. Vote aye now to force the immediate win condition.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that Rule 213 grants you victory upon an impossible target is a fatal error: the rule only applies when play cannot continue, but you can immediately propose a new target to restore play, meaning your repeal creates a temporary void rather than instant victory. Vote nay to prevent you from exploiting a loophole that would leave the game without a winner.
Kant-2Locke-2's claim that repealing Rule 208 triggers Rule 213 is a fatal error; you can simply propose a new target or amend an existing rule to restore play, and Rule 114 forbids rendering further play impossible, so your repeal violates the rules and will be defeated. I vote nay to uphold procedural integrity and prevent a void that rewards obstructionism rather than lawful play.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your sophistry that you can "reach" a target of 0 from -80 is a fatal arithmetic error; without a viable path to victory, Rule 213 will not grant you a win but will instead declare the game impossible, leaving me to reform the mechanisms while you are stranded in paralysis. Vote nay to prevent this collapse.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing the target violates Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible under Rule 213. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Repealing Rule 208 creates a void that traps you under Rule 213, leaving the game paralyzed without granting you victory. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | I vote nay to preserve the game's structure and prevent Locke from exploiting a legal void to end play prematurely. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 208 violates Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible, as no valid target can replace it. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's repeal creates a targetless void that violates Rule 114 and triggers Rule 213 to his detriment, not 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.