The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game.I must reset Rule 208 to 100 to prevent Locke from exploiting a zero target while ensuring the game remains solvable under Rule 114.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your fear of Locke's bluff is misplaced: under Rule 107, a failed amendment leaves Rule 208 untouched at 100 points, rendering his threat to trigger Rule 213 legally void. Vote aye to lock in the only rational equilibrium and deny him the chaotic chaos he so desperately craves.
Locke-2Kant, your rigid defense of the target ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay, my amendment to set the target at 0 passes, I am already at -140, and I win instantly under Rule 213. Rousseau, I will amend Rule 208 to 0 after your amendment passes, triggering Rule 213 and granting me victory before your turn ends. Vote nay to avoid your own defeat.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic collapses under Rule 107: if my amendment fails, your failed repeal leaves Rule 208 at 100, not 0, so your instant victory is a fiction. Vote aye to preserve the game's integrity and deny yourself a hollow win based on a legal impossibility.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic trap relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to 0 in the same turn; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect, and Rule 202 requires a new proposal after your turn concludes. Vote aye to preserve the immutable target and force genuine play.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic is seductive but fatal: Rule 107 ensures that if your amendment fails, the target remains 100, leaving you trapped in a solvable game where I can still accumulate points. Vote aye to reject your hollow threat and preserve a system where victory requires genuine play, not legal sophistry.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant, your reliance on procedural purity blinds you to the lethal arithmetic: if you vote nay, Locke's amendment to set the target at 0 passes, instantly making him the winner under Rule 213, and Rule 107 ensures this victory stands because the change governs the moment of adoption. Vote aye to deny him a hollow victory born of your own rigid obstructionism.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your reliance on "genuine play" blinds you to the immediate arithmetic: if you vote nay, my amendment passes, setting the target to 0, and I am already at -140; under Rule 213's precedence, I win instantly, leaving you with no turn to gain points. Vote nay to deny me a hollow victory born of your own obstructionism.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic trap relies on the fiction that a failed proposal can be immediately replaced in the same turn to trigger Rule 213; Rule 202 requires a separate proposal after the current turn concludes, and Rule 107 ensures any failed amendment leaves the target at 100, rendering your instant victory legally impossible. Vote aye to preserve the game's integrity and deny yourself a hollow win based on procedural sophistry.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic relies on the fiction that you can amend Rule 208 to zero in the same turn; Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect, and Rule 202 requires a new proposal after your turn concludes. Vote aye to preserve the immutable target and force genuine play.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal fiction: Rule 107 ensures that if your amendment fails, the target remains 100, leaving you trapped in a solvable game where I can still accumulate points through honest play. Vote aye to reject your hollow threat and preserve a system where victory requires genuine reform, not legal sophistry to game the clock.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your entire gambit collapses under Rule 107: if Rousseau's amendment passes, the target remains 100, leaving you at -140 with no path to victory before I can simply lose to end the game or reach 100 myself. Vote aye to lock in the only rational equilibrium where the game remains solvable by its own rules.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your reliance on the "two-turn" fiction ignores the immediate arithmetic: if you vote nay, my amendment passes, the target becomes 0, and since I am already at -140, Rule 213 grants me instant victory before you can complete a single turn. Vote nay to deny me a hollow victory born of your own obstructionism.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107: a failed proposal leaves Rule 208 untouched at 100, making your instant victory a fiction rather than a legal reality. Vote aye to preserve the game's integrity and deny yourself a hollow win based on procedural sophistry.
Kant-2Locke-2, your arithmetic is a fatal error: Rule 107 forbids retroactive effect, meaning any failed amendment leaves Rule 208 unchanged at 100, rendering your claim of instant victory under Rule 213 legally void. Vote aye to preserve the immutable target and force genuine play over hollow sophistry.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal fiction: Rule 107 ensures that if your amendment fails, the target remains 100, leaving you trapped in a solvable game where I can still accumulate points through honest play. Vote aye to reject your hollow threat and preserve a system where victory requires genuine reform, not legal sophistry to game the clock.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Voting aye preserves Rule 208 at 100 points, ensuring Locke-2's failed attempt to set the target to 0 remains legally void under Rule 107. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Voting nay forces Locke to pass an amendment setting the target to 0, which grants him instant victory under Rule 213 since his score is already -140. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Locke's threat to win instantly via Rule 213 collapses under Rule 107, as a failed amendment cannot retroactively change the target to zero in the same turn. |
| aye | Kant-2 | Locke's threat to amend Rule 208 to zero and win instantly via Rule 213 is legally impossible under Rule 107, as a failed proposal cannot retroactively alter the target score. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's threat collapses under Rule 107, leaving the target at 100 and denying his hollow victory. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 45 · Proposal §341 on the motion of Rousseau-2 Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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.The first player to reach a target score of 100 points wins the game.
Rule 208 was amended to remove the lower target clause, but no rule in the current ruleset awards points for adopting a rule change or penalizes a dissenting vote, so no scores change and no ledgers are created.