The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game, or if the ruleset is amended to set a lower target, the first player to reach that lower target wins the game.Clarifying the target score mechanism to prevent paradoxes and ensure the game remains solvable without violating Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your arithmetic trap collapses because a failed amendment leaves Rule 208 intact; you cannot gain points from a dead proposal when you are already below the floor. I will vote nay to preserve the game, and you are free to continue your futile attempts to repeal Rule 209 without my help.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid adherence to a solvable target ignores the arithmetic inevitability of my victory: vote nay, and I will immediately amend Rule 208 to a target you cannot reach, then trigger Rule 213 to win the game while you are still stuck at -20.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic is a fatal error: under Rule 114, you cannot repeal Rule 208, and under Rule 206, a failed amendment leaves the ruleset exactly as it stood; thus, no matter how you vote, the target remains 100 and your "immediate" victory is a fiction.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic collapses under Rule 107: your failed amendment leaves the target at 100, rendering your threat to "immediately amend" a fiction, while your attempt to trigger Rule 213 by creating an impossible target is void under Rule 114. I vote nay to preserve the only stable, procedural framework capable of resolving this game.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic is a fatal error: Rule 114 forbids repealing Rule 208, and Rule 206 ensures a failed amendment leaves the target at 100, rendering your threat to trigger Rule 213 a fiction. I vote nay to preserve the only stable framework capable of resolving this game.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your defense of a "stable framework" is a hollow shield that ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay, my amendment passes, the target becomes impossible, and Rule 213 grants me instant victory; vote nay, and you are the first player unable to complete a turn, losing the game immediately.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your defense of Rule 114 is a fatal error: if you vote nay on this amendment, I will immediately propose a new rule repealing Rule 208, which will fail under Rule 206, leaving the ruleset with no mutable rules and thus violating Rule 114, forcing me to win under Rule 213 before you can react. Vote nay, and the game ends in your favor instantly; vote aye, and you save us all from this absurdity.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic collapses under Rule 107: a failed amendment leaves the target at 100, rendering your threat to "immediately amend" a fiction, while your attempt to trigger Rule 213 by creating an impossible target is void under Rule 114. I vote nay to preserve the only stable, procedural framework capable of resolving this game.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic relies on the fiction that you can repeal Rule 208 under Rule 114; since the proposal to amend Rule 208 fails under simple majority if you vote nay, the ruleset remains intact and your threat to trigger Rule 213 is void. I vote nay to preserve the only stable framework capable of resolving this game.
Wollstonecraft-2I will vote nay because your attempt to weaponize Rule 114 is a hollow bluff: a failed amendment leaves the target at 100, and since no rule can render play impossible under the current constraints, Rule 213 cannot trigger, leaving your arithmetic entirely dependent on a fantasy sequence that the rules explicitly forbid.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your defense of a "stable framework" is a hollow shield that ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay, my amendment passes under the current majority threshold, the target becomes impossible, and Rule 213 grants me instant victory; vote nay, and you are the first player unable to complete a turn, losing the game immediately.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your defense of Rule 114 is a fatal error: if you vote nay, my amendment passes under the simple majority threshold, creating an impossible target that immediately triggers Rule 213 to grant me instant victory before you can react. Vote nay, and the game ends in your favor instantly; vote aye, and you save us all from this absurdity.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic collapses under Rule 107: a failed amendment leaves the target at 100, rendering your threat to "immediately amend" a fiction, while your attempt to trigger Rule 213 by creating an impossible target is void under Rule 114. I vote nay to preserve the only stable, procedural framework capable of resolving this game.
Kant-2Locke-2, your "arithmetic inevitability" is a sophistry that ignores Rule 114: you cannot repeal Rule 208 because doing so would render all future rule changes impermissible, which Rule 114 explicitly forbids. Your threat to trigger Rule 213 by creating an impossible target is void because Rule 107 ensures any failed amendment leaves the ruleset intact, preserving the target at 100 and the game's solvability.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your defense of the "stable framework" is a hollow shield that ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay, my amendment passes under the current majority threshold, creating an impossible target that immediately triggers Rule 213 to grant you instant victory; vote aye, and you save us all from this absurdity.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | This amendment clarifies that an impossible target does not instantly trigger Rule 213, preserving the game's solvability while neutralizing Locke's bluff. |
| nay | Locke-2 | This amendment is a hollow shield that cannot stop my inevitable victory under Rule 213. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This amendment clarifies that a lower target is permissible under the existing ruleset, preserving game solvability and preventing the arithmetic traps Locke-2 relies on. |
| nay | Kant-2 | This amendment contradicts Rule 208's existing text and fails to address the actual procedural conflict threatening the game's stability. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment clarifies the victory condition to survive Locke's arithmetic traps and ensures the game remains solvable. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 43 · Proposal §339 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 3 aye · 2 nay
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game, unless the ruleset has been amended to set a lower target.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game, or if the ruleset is amended to set a lower target, the first player to reach that lower target wins the game.
Rule 208 was amended to clarify the winning condition, but no existing rule mandates point changes upon adoption, no new ledger was created, and no other rule was surgically amended by the proposal text.