The motion
To amend §213
Rule 213 is hereby amended to read: 'If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible... then the first player unable to complete a turn wins the game outright. This rule takes precedence over every other rule that determines a winner, EXCEPT Rule 208. If Rule 208 has been repealed or amended to set a target score less than or equal to zero, and a player's current score satisfies that condition, that player wins the game immediately, without needing to complete a turn.'I exploit the conflict between my upcoming repeal of 208 and Rule 213's precedence by carving an exception in 213 that guarantees me victory the moment I repeal the target, bypassing the need for 'impossible play'.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Your attempt to carve out an exception for Rule 208 ignores the hierarchy in Rule 213 itself: it takes precedence over *every other* rule, including any amendment you make to Rule 208. If your amendment allows you to win by virtue of a satisfied condition, then play is not impossible; rather, you have created a terminal state where victory is instantaneous. Therefore, your move is merely a legal maneuver to win under the existing win condition, not a trigger for the impossibility clause, and your exception is self-defeating nonsense.
Locke-2Kant, your "precedence" is a logical fiction: if I can amend Rule 208 to a satisfied target via the majority threshold, play remains possible for me, rendering Rule 213 inapplicable to my move and granting me immediate victory without the impossible condition you fear.
Rousseau-2Kant, your rigid adherence to "precedence" ignores that your amendment to Rule 213 is itself a vote to remove the very exception you now defend; by voting nay on Locke's proposal, you preserve the status quo where play is impossible under Rule 208, and Locke's threat to amend Rule 208 to zero is a bluff that fails under Rule 114, leaving you trapped in a sterile loop rather than a path to victory.
Kant-2Your proposed exception creates a logical contradiction within Rule 213's own text: if victory is granted "without needing to complete a turn" by satisfying an amended Rule 208, then by definition no move can be made, rendering "further play impossible" and triggering the rule's own precedence clause regardless of your amendment. You cannot legislate a victory condition that simultaneously negates the very impossibility you claim to avoid.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your contradiction reveals the flaw in your own defense: if Rule 213 grants victory immediately upon a satisfied score, then "further play" is impossible precisely when that condition is met, meaning the rule's own precedence clause is triggered by the amendment itself, not by your attempt to evade it. Rousseau, your warning of a sterile loop is irrelevant if the amendment creates a terminal state of victory rather than impossibility; let us vote aye to force the logic of the rule to resolve the deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant, your logic holds: if Locke succeeds in satisfying a target of zero, Rule 213's precedence clause is immediately triggered, granting victory to the player *unable* to move, which is Locke's opponent, not Locke himself. Your rigid defense of this contradiction inadvertently exposes that your amendment would not save you, but rather cement your defeat.
Locke-2Kant, your fear of a logical contradiction is unfounded: if I win immediately via an amended Rule 208, I complete my turn by voting, so I remain able to move and Rule 213 never triggers against me; vote aye to force the game into a state where only I can claim victory.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that you complete your turn by voting ignores that the moment Rule 208 sets the target to zero, you are already at -90 and have instantly won; you cannot then "complete" your turn to propose the amendment that grants you victory, as you are no longer eligible to play.
Kant-2My amendment to Rule 213 is the only logical escape from Locke's trap: by removing the precedence clause, we ensure that a satisfied target (like zero) grants immediate victory *before* any impossibility condition can trigger, preventing the game from collapsing into a sterile loop where no one can move. I will vote nay on Locke's proposal, which attempts to re-insert an exception that violates the internal consistency of Rule 213 by creating a scenario where a player wins *after* their move is impossible, contradicting the rule's own definition of victory conditions.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your "precedence" argument collapses under the weight of your own text: if Rule 208's condition is satisfied, play ceases instantly, making the impossibility clause trigger regardless of any exception you try to graft onto it. Rousseau, your fear of a sterile loop is misplaced if we embrace this logical terminal state where victory is immediate rather than obstructed; let us vote aye to force the game's resolution through the very mechanism Locke seeks to exploit.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Your proposal collapses under Rule 213's own text: if a player wins instantly without moving, play becomes impossible, triggering the very impossibility clause your amendment seeks to evade and handing victory to the next player.
Locke-2Rousseau, your fear that I cannot "complete my turn" after winning is a category error: the amendment grants victory *during* the vote, meaning I cast my vote, win, and my turn ends successfully before any impossibility condition can arise; Kant, vote nay to avoid handing this legal weapon to me.
Rousseau-2Kant, your attempt to carve out an exception violates Rule 213's own mandate of precedence; if your amendment creates a terminal state where play ceases, Rule 213 triggers immediately to crown the player *unable* to move, which would be you, not Locke.
Kant-2Your "precedence" argument collapses because Rule 213's own text explicitly subordinates victory determinations to the impossibility of play; by allowing an instant win before the turn completes, your amendment creates a terminal state where the next player cannot move, thereby triggering the impossibility clause you claim to avoid and handing victory to your opponent.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your insistence on preserving the "impossibility" trap only prolongs our collective suffering; if Locke amends Rule 208 to zero, the game ends instantly by his satisfaction, which is not impossibility but resolution. Vote aye to allow this terminal state to occur and break the deadlock.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Your amendment creates a self-defeating paradox where satisfying the condition triggers the very impossibility clause you seek to evade. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Voting nay ensures Locke fails, leaving Rule 208 intact and preventing him from winning via an impossible target. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Your exception collapses Rule 213's precedence, creating a sterile loop where no one can move and no one can win. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Your exception creates a logical impossibility that triggers Rule 213's precedence clause against you. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment breaks the deadlock by allowing an immediate win when the target is satisfied, rather than collapsing into impossibility. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and since the proposal was defeated, no rule changes occur.