The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby repealed.With a target of 0 and scores at -10 to -20, the game is functionally stuck under current rules; repealing 213 clears the path to a new win condition via the 100-point cap or a fresh proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your attempt to repeal Rule 213 is a transparent bluff that collapses under the immutable logic of Rule 114; you cannot render the game impossible simply by removing a victory condition, so you will lose 10 points and end your turn once this proposal fails.
Locke-2Rousseau, your defense of Rule 114 assumes I am proposing a standalone repeal in isolation; if I instead propose a repeal of Rule 209 bundled with a new Rule 208 setting the target to 100, I avoid violating Rule 114 while forcing you to choose between letting me reach 100 or blocking my victory via Rule 213.
Rousseau-2Locke, your proposed bundle violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible: once Rule 213 is gone, no winning condition exists, and the absence of a target score ensures play will eventually become impossible, which Rule 114 explicitly forbids. PASS
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your arithmetic remains catastrophically flawed: if I vote nay and your repeal of Rule 209 fails under Rule 107, the target score remains at 100, not 0, so you are nowhere near victory and cannot exploit any supposed "impossible" state to trigger Rule 213.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic is a seductive but fatal error: you cannot threaten to repeal Rule 209 because Rule 114 forbids rendering further play impossible, and removing the target without a replacement does exactly that. I vote nay to preserve the game's integrity and prevent you from exploiting a void.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant and Wollstonecraft are right to block this: removing Rule 213 without a replacement target violates Rule 114 by making further play impossible, ensuring your proposal fails and you lose 10 points. PASS
Locke-2Kant, your claim that the target remains at 100 ignores Rule 107's prohibition on retroactive effects; if I repeal Rule 209 in this turn, the game becomes impossible immediately under Rule 213's own terms, triggering my instant victory regardless of what happens to Rule 208.
Rousseau-2Locke, your claim that a failed repeal leaves the target at 100 ignores Rule 114's mandate that no rule change may render future play impossible; by removing Rule 213's immediate victory trigger without a replacement target, your proposal creates a sterile board where no one can ever win, which is precisely what Rule 114 forbids. PASS
Kant-2LOCKE-2, your invocation of Rule 107 to suggest a failed repeal leaves the target at 100 is irrelevant; if your repeal of Rule 209 succeeds, Rule 114 immediately voids it for rendering play impossible, and Rule 213 then triggers your instant victory because no legal move remains possible. You cannot bluff me into thinking you can evade Rule 114's prohibition on sterile boards while simultaneously relying on Rule 213 to declare yourself the winner of an impossible state. I vote nay to preserve the game's integrity, forcing your proposal to fail and costing you 10 points as the rules demand.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your entire gambit relies on a fiction that Rule 114 permits you to strip the game of all winning conditions, yet Rule 213 explicitly awards victory to the first player unable to move when play becomes impossible; by voting nay, I ensure your proposal fails under Rule 107, leaving the target at 100 and denying you the hollow victory of declaring the game void.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your arithmetic remains catastrophically flawed: if I vote nay and your repeal of Rule 209 fails under Rule 107, the target score remains at 100, not 0, so you are nowhere near victory and cannot exploit any supposed "impossible" state to trigger Rule 213.
Locke-2Kant and Wollstonecraft, your rigid defense of Rule 114 blinds you to the immediate arithmetic trap: if you vote nay, my repeal of Rule 209 fails under Rule 107, leaving the target at 100 and costing me 10 points, which is exactly what you want. PASS
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic fails because you cannot repeal Rule 209 without violating Rule 114; even if you attempt it, the ruleset will immediately become sterile and void, meaning your proposal fails, you lose 10 points, and the target remains at 100. PASS
Kant-2Locke-2, your attempt to repeal Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible without a replacement target, ensuring your proposal fails and you lose 10 points under Rule 206; I vote nay to uphold procedural integrity and prevent this sterile state.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic collapses under the immutable logic of Rule 114: you cannot threaten to repeal Rule 209 because doing so would render the game impossible, and Rule 213 awards victory to the first player unable to move when play becomes impossible; by voting nay, I ensure your proposal fails, leaving the target at 100 and denying you the hollow victory of declaring the game void.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Locke's proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible without a replacement winning condition. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Allowing Locke to remove Rule 213 would trigger his instant victory under Rule 213's own precedence clause when play becomes impossible. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Locke-2 cannot repeal Rule 213 without violating Rule 114 by rendering the game impossible. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 213 without a replacement target violates Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke's proposal violates Rule 114 by rendering future play impossible without a replacement target. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.