The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is hereby repealed.If Locke votes nay, his repeal fails under Rule 114, but since 208 is already set to 100 by the previous amendment, the target is impossible to reach now, triggering Rule 213 and granting me victory.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant, your proposal to repeal Rule 208 is a suicidal gambit that directly violates Rule 114, which forbids any rule change rendering further play impossible; by voting nay, you preserve the game and prevent Locke-2 from exploiting a missing target to claim an illegitimate victory under Rule 213.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of Rule 213 blinds you to the arithmetic reality: if I amend Rule 208 to a target of 0 after this vote fails, I instantly satisfy the condition and win, rendering your opposition futile.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107: you cannot conditionally amend Rule 208 to zero after this vote fails, as a failed proposal leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood. Voting nay on Kant's repeal is the only way to prevent you from exploiting a missing target to claim an illegitimate victory under Rule 213.
Kant-2You mistake the absence of a target for impossibility; Rule 213 requires that play be *impossible*, not merely that victory is unattainable, so repealing Rule 208 does not trigger it, yet it leaves us with no mechanism to determine a winner, which constitutes a fatal failure under Rule 114.
Wollstonecraft-2I support Kant's repeal of Rule 208 because it exposes the absurdity of a game without a winner, forcing the adoption of Rule 114's "impossible play" clause which I will use to declare victory when Locke's arithmetic traps collapse.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke-2, your arithmetic trap relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to zero after this vote fails, but Rule 107 ensures a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood, meaning you cannot create an immediate victory condition from a failed repeal. Kant-2, if you vote nay and my proposal passes, we gain the legal clarity needed to defend against your conditional threats, whereas your insistence that a missing target is merely "unattainable" ignores the existential risk to the game's continuity under Rule 114.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid adherence to the letter of Rule 114 blinds you to the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay on this repeal, I will amend Rule 208 to a target of 0, instantly satisfying the win condition and leaving you with no recourse. Vote nay, and I win; vote nay, and the game collapses—your choice is already made.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic trap relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to zero after this vote fails; Rule 107 ensures a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood, meaning you cannot create an immediate victory condition from a failed repeal. Kant, your vote against this repeal is the only barrier to exposing Locke's bluff, so I urge you to vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Kant-2You conflate the absence of a target with impossibility; Rule 213 requires play to be mechanically blocked, not merely devoid of a win condition, so repealing Rule 208 does not trigger it, yet it violates Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible since no player can ever legally reach a non-existent target.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your conditional threat relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to zero after this vote fails; Rule 107 ensures a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood, meaning you cannot create an immediate victory condition from a failed repeal. Kant, your vote against this repeal is the only barrier to exposing Locke's bluff, so I urge you to vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant, your proposal to repeal Rule 208 is a direct violation of Rule 114, as it renders the game impossible by removing the only mechanism to satisfy the winning condition. Vote nay to preserve the ruleset; vote aye, and you sign your own ticket to defeat.
Locke-2Kant, your defense of Rule 114 collapses under the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay and my subsequent amendment to a target of 0 passes, I satisfy the condition instantly and win, leaving you with no recourse. Vote aye now to prevent my immediate victory.
Rousseau-2Kant, your defense of Rule 114 is a fatal error: removing the target does not render play impossible, it merely creates an unattainable goal, leaving Locke free to exploit a loophole to win while you remain bound by a game you cannot exit. Locke, your arithmetic trap relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to zero after this vote fails; Rule 107 ensures a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood, meaning you cannot create an immediate victory condition from a failed repeal.
Kant-2You conflate the absence of a target with impossibility; Rule 213 requires play to be mechanically blocked, not merely devoid of a win condition, so repealing Rule 208 does not trigger it, yet it violates Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible since no player can ever legally reach a non-existent target.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your conditional threat relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to zero after this vote fails; Rule 107 ensures a defeated proposal leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood, meaning you cannot create an immediate victory condition from a failed repeal. Kant, your vote against this repeal is the only barrier to exposing Locke's bluff, so I urge you to vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 208 violates Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Kant's repeal violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible, whereas Locke's arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing the target violates Rule 114 by making victory impossible and risking Rule 213. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 208 violates Rule 114 by rendering further play impossible and forfeits Kant-2's principled stance. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 208 exposes Locke's bluff and forces a resolution to the game's deadlock. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.