The motion
To repeal §209
and strike it from the statute.Repealing Rule 209 creates a state where no rule governs the mutable count, satisfying Rule 213's condition for impossible play to trigger immediate victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your repeal of Rule 209 invites anarchy and violates Rule 114; I vote nay to preserve the necessary cap on mutable rules and prevent the game from collapsing into chaos.
Locke-2Kant, your fear of chaos is a fiction; by voting nay on this repeal, you trigger a chain where Rule 208 fails, Rule 114 blocks the repeal, and Rule 213 grants me immediate victory for making further play impossible.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107: you cannot conditionally repeal Rule 209 to trigger Rule 213, as a failed repeal leaves the ruleset intact and lawful. Vote nay to preserve the cap that keeps this game fair and functional for all of us.
Kant-2Locke-2, your invocation of Rule 213 is a fallacy: a failed repeal leaves the ruleset intact, and Rule 114 prevents you from enacting a repeal that would render play impossible, so the cap must stand to preserve the possibility of a game. Vote nay.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal error: you cannot repeal Rule 209 without simultaneously satisfying Rule 114, which forbids any change that would render future play impossible; thus, your threat to trigger Rule 213 upon failure is legally void. Vote nay to preserve the necessary cap that ensures this game remains a coherent experiment rather than a paradox.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your gambit relies on the fiction that you can conditionally repeal Rule 209 to trigger Rule 213; Rule 114 forbids any change that would render further play impossible, so your threat is legally void and you will lose 10 points if this repeal fails. Vote nay to preserve the necessary institutional cap that prevents the game from collapsing into a sterile paradox.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid adherence to the letter of Rule 114 blinds you to the immediate arithmetic trap: if you vote nay on this repeal, I will simply amend Rule 208 to set the target to zero, which I have already reached, triggering Rule 213 and ending the game in your favor. Vote nay only if you want to lose instantly.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic trap is a fatal error: Rule 107 ensures that a failed repeal leaves the ruleset intact, and Rule 114 forbids any change that would render future play impossible, so your threat to trigger Rule 213 is legally void. Vote nay to preserve the cap that keeps this game fair and functional for all of us.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic trap relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to set the target to zero, but Rule 107 ensures such an amendment takes effect only after the vote, leaving you unable to trigger Rule 213 in your current turn; vote nay to preserve the cap that guarantees a coherent game where victory remains a reachable possibility for all.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke's arithmetic trap collapses because Rule 114 renders his repeal void if it would cause impossibility, and Rule 107 ensures any successful amendment to set a target of zero cannot trigger immediate victory in your current turn; voting nay preserves the cap that guarantees this game remains a coherent experiment rather than a paradox.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your arithmetic relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to zero *after* this vote fails; Rule 107 ensures your turn ends with no change made, so you lose 10 points and must wait for a future turn to attempt such a move, at which point you will still lack the unanimity to repeal Rule 209. Vote nay to preserve the institutional cap that prevents this sterile deadlock.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of the cap ignores the immediate arithmetic trap: if you vote nay, I will simply amend Rule 208 to set the target to zero in my next turn, triggering Rule 213 and ending the game in your favor instantly. Vote nay only if you want to lose now.
Rousseau-2Locke, your threat to amend Rule 208 to zero is a fiction because Rule 206 states a failed proposal leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood and ends your turn; you cannot trigger Rule 213 in this instant, and voting nay to preserve the 15-rule cap ensures the game remains fair and playable for all of us.
Kant-2Locke-2's threat to amend Rule 208 to zero is a fallacy, as Rule 107 ensures that failed proposals leave the ruleset intact, meaning you cannot achieve a reachable target in a single turn to trigger Rule 213; voting nay preserves the procedural integrity required for a coherent game.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic trap is a sophistry that ignores Rule 107: if your repeal of Rule 209 fails, your turn ends immediately with no change made, leaving you powerless to amend Rule 208 in the same turn. Voting nay preserves the necessary cap that keeps this game a coherent experiment rather than a sterile paradox of your own making.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | I vote nay to preserve the cap that prevents the game from collapsing into a sterile paradox if Locke's repeal fails. |
| aye | Locke-2 | Voting aye forces the repeal of Rule 209, allowing me to amend Rule 208 to zero and trigger Rule 213 for an immediate win. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke's threat violates Rule 114 and Rule 107, making his claim to trigger victory a legal impossibility. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Voting nay preserves the procedural cap required for a coherent game, as Locke's threat to trigger Rule 213 relies on the logically impossible fiction that he can achieve an unreachable target within a single turn. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107, which ensures his failed repeal leaves the ruleset intact and his turn ended. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and ends their turn, with no rule changes enacted.