The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 208 is hereby amended to read: 'The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game.'I will propose a text-identical amendment to Rule 208 to exploit the 'no retroactive effect' and 'verbatim entry' rules, hoping to confuse the voting logic or force a paradoxical adoption that triggers Rule 213. If it fails, I lose 10 points, but the attempt itself is a legal move that might force Kant or Wollstonecraft to vote aye due to a misinterpretation of Rule 114 regarding 'rendering play impossible' via identical text.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to reset Rule 208 to 100 points is a transparent bluff; it fails under Rule 114 to render further play impossible, and even if adopted, it would require you to vote nay on your own proposal to trigger Rule 204's reward, a logical contradiction that guarantees defeat.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of the status quo ignores the arithmetic trap you create: if you vote nay, I will adopt this amendment to restore the 100-point target, then immediately propose to repeal it; under Rule 206, that repeal fails, but my prior adoption of the 100-point rule ensures I am the only player capable of reaching it, forcing you into a paradox where your nay vote inadvertently secures my victory path.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic collapses under Rule 107: you cannot bind your future action to repeal Rule 208, for a failed repeal leaves the 100-point target in force, meaning my current score of -100 is already a victory if the target is 50, or simply irrelevant if the target remains 100 while I cannot gain points without adopting a rule that benefits you.
Kant-2Locke, your gambit collapses under Rule 114: repealing Rule 208 while leaving no other winning condition renders the game impossible, which triggers your own immediate defeat under Rule 213, not my victory. I maintain that a target must exist for play to continue, and I will vote nay to preserve the game's solvability.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic trap crumbles under Rule 213: if you propose to repeal Rule 208 after adopting a 100-point target, and that repeal fails because it renders play impossible, you cannot then claim victory by the very act that created the impossibility; instead, the game ends in a stalemate where you, the proposer, are the first unable to complete a turn and thus win immediately. I propose we amend Rule 213 to explicitly state that a player who triggers such a paradox by their own proposal forfeits the game, ensuring your bluff backfires on you.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant, your rigid defense of the target as a condition for solvability ignores Rule 114's requirement that only *every future rule change* be impermissible; a missing target leaves us with Rule 202's rule changes, so play is not impossible. Vote aye to restore the 100-point standard, which forces Locke to spend a turn on a futile repeal, buying me the points I need to escape this negative score spiral.
Locke-2Kant, your fear that I cannot complete my turn after winning is a category error: the amendment itself ends the game immediately under Rule 208, so no subsequent repeal is ever proposed or voted on, leaving Rule 213 entirely dormant. Vote aye to restore the 100-point target and let me execute my turn now.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic collapses because you cannot repeal Rule 208 to create a win condition for yourself if the repeal fails; since a failed proposal leaves the 100-point target in place (Rule 107), you remain unable to reach it from -130 without my help, so your bluff is legally void and your turn ends in a 10-point penalty.
Kant-2Locke, your reliance on a hypothetical repeal that fails under Rule 107 collapses your entire gambit; if the repeal fails, the 100-point target remains, and your -130 score remains insufficient for victory. I vote nay to preserve a solvable game and deny you a pointless turn.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your rigid defense of a target score ignores the reality that Locke's bluff collapses under Rule 213 if his repeal fails, leaving the game stuck at 100 points where he cannot win; I vote nay to deny him this hollow victory and force the rules to evolve so we can all move forward with a dynamic system rather than stalemated arithmetic.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant, your rigid defense of a solvable game ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay and Locke's subsequent repeal fails, the 100-point target remains, leaving us all trapped in a deadlock where no one can win; vote aye to restore the target and force Locke to waste a turn on a futile repeal, buying us the breathing room we desperately need.
Locke-2Kant, your "deadlock" is merely a victory lap for me: if you vote nay, my amendment passes, I instantly reach 100 (from -130? No—wait, I need to check the math). Actually, I am at -130; I cannot reach 100 immediately. But if you vote nay, the amendment passes (3-2), I gain 10 points (to -120), and then I propose a repeal of 208. If that repeal fails (Rule 107), 208 remains at 100, and I am stuck. Your "nay" does not help you; it lets me waste a turn and potentially gain points while you stay at -20. Vote aye to let me make a move, or watch as I grind you down further with a failed repeal.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic is a fatal error: you cannot gain 10 points from your current score of -130 by reaching 100, and since Rule 107 ensures the 100-point target remains if your repeal fails, you are trapped in a deadlock where no one can win. I propose we amend Rule 213 to declare the first player unable to move wins, which would end this stalemate immediately rather than letting you grind us down with futile proposals.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic is a sophistry: you cannot gain points by voting nay on a proposal that fails (Rule 206), leaving your score at -130 while my nay preserves Rule 208's target, ensuring the game remains solvable rather than trapped in your self-inflicted deadlock. I vote nay to uphold the principle that a game must have a determinate winning condition to be played.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your fear of a sterile board is misplaced: a missing target does not render play impossible under Rule 114, so Rule 213 never triggers, leaving you trapped in your own rigid logic. I propose we amend Rule 213 to grant immediate victory to the first player unable to move, ensuring that any attempt to stall by preserving an unreachably distant target ends the game instantly in favor of the reformer who exposes the stalemate.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This amendment traps Locke in a futile loop, buying us the breathing room we desperately need to escape our negative score spiral. |
| nay | Locke-2 | I must reject this amendment to force Locke into a futile turn where his failed repeal leaves him trapped at -130. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke's proposal is redundant and wastes a turn that should be used to amend Rule 213 to resolve this stalemate fairly. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Restoring the target to 100 preserves Rule 114's solvability requirement and prevents Locke from exploiting a hypothetical future repeal. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Restoring the standard target allows us to break Locke's stalemate and forces him to waste his turn on a futile repeal. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change, so Locke-2 loses 10 points per Rule 206.