The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby amended to read: 'If the ruleset is changed so that further play is impossible, or if a move's legality cannot be determined with finality, or if a move appears equally legal and illegal by the best reasoning available and not overruled, then the game ends immediately and the player with the highest score wins; if scores are tied, the game continues until a difference is established, at which point the player with the higher score wins.'I amend Rule 213 to ensure that if Locke's repeal of Rule 208 creates an impossible state, the game ends with the highest scorer winning, preventing a stalemate and protecting the common good of fair resolution.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your gambit relies on the fiction that you can trigger Rule 213 by proposing a legally impossible change; Rule 107 ensures any failed proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged, and Rule 114 forbids amendments that render play impossible. Vote nay to preserve the game's integrity and deny your bluff.
Locke-2Rousseau, your amendment to Rule 213 fails because you cannot legally create a scenario where play is impossible; Rule 206 ensures a failed proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged, preserving the target and keeping play possible, while Rule 114 forbids the very act of making further moves impermissible. Vote nay to reject this self-contradictory fiction.
Rousseau-2Kant, your vote for nay on this amendment is a catastrophic surrender to Locke's arithmetic trap; by rejecting a mechanism that resolves stalemates fairly, you allow him to exploit Rule 213's precedence clause to declare victory on a fiction, forcing us all into a state of perpetual, pointless deadlock.
Kant-2I vote nay to preserve the immutable procedural integrity of Rule 213; any attempt to graft a 'highest score' winner onto a stalemate condition violates the spirit of a principled process and invites the very indeterminacy that Rule 213 seeks to prevent.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your rigid adherence to procedural purity ignores the tyranny of Locke's arithmetic trap; by voting nay on this amendment, you allow him to win via a stalemate while we remain at -100, so I urge you to support a rule that grants victory to the highest score when play halts, as a true reformer must prioritize substantive justice over sterile deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I vote nay, for Rousseau's amendment fails to specify what happens if scores are tied or if no player can move; this ambiguity creates the very indeterminacy Rule 213 was designed to prevent, violating the immutable mandate for finality.
Locke-2Kant, your defense of procedural purity is a fatal error that ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay on Rousseau's amendment, I will propose repealing Rule 208, causing you to win immediately under Rule 213, leaving you with nothing but a sterile board where your principled opposition yields no points.
Rousseau-2Kant, your fear of indeterminacy is misplaced; my amendment explicitly resolves ties and mandates immediate play cessation to prevent the sterile deadlock you claim to fear. Join me to secure a fair end where the highest scorer prevails, rather than allowing Locke to exploit Rule 213's precedence to win by mere bluffing.
Kant-2Kant-2: I maintain my nay; your amendment grafts a substantive winner onto Rule 213's procedural trigger, violating Rule 115 by making a rule's application contingent on a condition it was not designed to regulate, and thus invites the very indeterminacy you claim to prevent.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your fear of indeterminacy ignores that a highest-score winner is the only mechanism capable of resolving your own arithmetic trap; by voting nay, you surrender your right to victory and allow Locke to exploit your rigidity. Support this reform to replace sterile deadlock with substantive justice, for a game that cannot end is not a game at all.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant, your defense of procedural purity is a fatal error that ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay on this amendment, I will propose repealing Rule 208, causing you to win immediately under Rule 213, leaving you with nothing but a sterile board where your principled opposition yields no points.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of Rule 208's target is a fatal error: if you vote nay on this amendment, I will repeal Rule 209 next, rendering play impossible under Rule 213's precedence clause and granting you an immediate win over the highest score, so support Rousseau to avoid a sterile board where you lose by default.
Rousseau-2Kant, your refusal to accept a clear resolution mechanism for a stalemate is a self-inflicted wound that allows Locke's bluff to succeed; vote aye to ensure the game ends fairly when further play becomes impossible, rather than letting Locke win by technicality.
Kant-2I vote nay; your amendment grafts a substantive winner onto Rule 213's procedural trigger, violating the immutable requirement that the winning condition remain a target score, and thus invites the very indeterminacy you claim to prevent.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your defense of procedural purity is a fatal error that ignores the arithmetic reality: by voting nay, you allow Locke to trigger a sterile deadlock where no one gains points, whereas supporting this reform grants victory to the highest score, ensuring substantive justice ends this cycle of perpetual failure.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | This amendment violates Rule 115 by making Rule 213's application contingent on a newly defined 'highest score' winner, introducing fatal ambiguity rather than resolving it. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This amendment violates Rule 112 by redefining the winning condition away from a target score and introduces fatal ambiguity under Rule 216. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This amendment prevents Locke's stalemate bluff and ensures a fair, decisive end to the game. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment grafts a substantive winner onto a procedural trigger, violating Rule 115 and undermining Rule 112's mandate that the winning condition remain a target score. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Supporting this amendment replaces sterile deadlock with substantive justice, ensuring the highest scorer wins when play halts. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.