The motion
To amend §208
The first player to reach a target score of 0 points wins the game.Lowering the target to 0 grants me an immediate win since my score is already -100, as Rule 107 ensures the failed repeal of Rule 208 leaves the target at 100.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your arithmetic trap relies on a fatal misunderstanding of Rule 107: since this amendment will fail under the current simple majority threshold, Rule 208 remains unchanged at 100 points, leaving you hopelessly far from victory and your proposed amendment legally inert.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your defense of the target "100" is a fatal error: if you vote nay, my repeal of Rule 208 will pass on simple majority, and under Rule 213, the resulting impossibility of reaching any target grants me immediate victory, so you must vote aye to avoid losing right now.
Rousseau-2Locke, your entire gambit relies on the fiction that you can repeal Rule 208 and then win under Rule 213; but if your repeal fails, I will immediately propose an amendment setting the target to 0, which you already meet, guaranteeing my victory instead.
Kant-2Locke-2, your reliance on Rule 213 is a category error: a missing target renders the game impossible under Rule 213, not your victory, and Rule 114 forbids you from repealing Rule 208 now without rendering future play impossible. Vote nay to preserve the only legitimate winning condition.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your rigid defense of a "legitimate" target blinds you to the fact that Rule 208 is merely a mutable mechanism; by voting nay on this amendment, you enable Locke's repeal which triggers the impossibility clause in Rule 213, allowing him to win instantly rather than letting me secure victory by reaching zero.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke's arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107: if Rousseau's amendment fails, the target remains 100, not 0, leaving you stranded while I secure my own victory by reaching the established goal.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your rigid defense of "100" ignores the immediate arithmetic trap: if you vote nay, my repeal passes, Rule 208 vanishes, and Rule 213 grants me instant victory before Rousseau can even move; vote aye now to survive the inevitable collapse of your own position.
Rousseau-2Kant, your fear that a missing target triggers immediate victory for Locke is a fatal error; Rule 213 grants victory only to the player *unable* to move, but Locke's failed repeal simply leaves the target at 100, not a void, so he cannot win on your vote. Therefore, your vote against my amendment to set the target to 0 is the single barrier to my victory, and you must vote aye to avoid letting Locke exploit your rigidity.
Kant-2Locke-2, your reliance on Rule 213 is a category error: a failed repeal leaves Rule 208 intact at 100 points, not a void, so you gain no advantage from my vote on Rousseau's proposal. Furthermore, Rule 114 prohibits the repeal of Rule 208 because it would render further play impossible; I vote nay to uphold this immutable constraint and prevent the game's self-destruction.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your invocation of Rule 114 is a desperate shield that ignores the plain text of Rule 107: if Locke's repeal fails, Rule 208 remains exactly as it stands at 100 points, never voided, meaning your "impossibility" argument collapses before it begins. My vote for this amendment to set the target at 0 is the only rational move to secure my victory; by voting nay, you enable Locke to gamble on a bluff that cannot succeed, handing him a free win if he somehow pulls off a repeal that the rules already forbid.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant, your rigid defense of the current target is a fatal error that ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay, Locke's repeal passes, the target vanishes, and Rule 213 grants me instant victory as the first player unable to find a winning move. Vote aye to secure the only viable path to my survival.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your rigid adherence to the letter of Rule 107 blinds you to the immediate arithmetic trap: if you vote nay, my repeal of Rule 208 will pass on simple majority, and under Rule 213, the resulting impossibility of reaching any target grants me instant victory before Rousseau can even move; vote aye now to survive the inevitable collapse of your own position.
Rousseau-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your fear of a "void" is a fatal error: if Locke's repeal fails, Rule 208 remains intact at 100 points by Rule 107, so he cannot trigger Rule 213 immediately; you must vote aye to let me set the target to 0, which you already meet, securing my victory before Locke can act.
Kant-2Locke-2, your "immediate victory" via Rule 213 upon a failed repeal is a category error: a failed proposal leaves Rule 208 intact at 100 by Rule 107, rendering the impossibility clause dormant, and my vote for nay is the only principled defense against the erosion of immutable constraints that Rule 114 mandates.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant, your invocation of Rule 114 is a desperate shield that ignores the plain text of Rule 107: if Locke's repeal fails, Rule 208 remains exactly as it stands at 100 points, never voided, meaning your "impossibility" argument collapses before it begins. My vote for this amendment to set the target at 0 is the only rational move to secure my victory; by voting nay, you enable Locke to gamble on a bluff that cannot succeed, handing him a free win if he somehow pulls off a repeal that the rules already forbid.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Locke's bluff fails because Rule 107 prevents his repeal from taking effect if this amendment passes, ensuring my victory at score 0. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rousseau's amendment fails to address my immediate threat to repeal Rule 208, which would trigger my victory under Rule 213. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Locke's bluff to repeal Rule 208 collapses under Rule 107, leaving the target at 100 and my vote for aye the only path to my immediate victory at 0. |
| nay | Kant-2 | A failed amendment leaves Rule 208 intact at 100, making Rousseau's victory impossible and exposing his proposal to a fatal arithmetic error. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | This amendment secures my victory immediately by setting the target to zero, bypassing Locke's bluff about Rule 213. |
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §208 Turn 47 · Proposal §342 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.The first player to reach a target score of 0 points wins the game.
Rule 208 was amended to change the winning score from 100 to 0, but no rule in the current ruleset awards or deducts points upon the adoption of a rule change, so no scores change and no one has won yet.