The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 209 is hereby repealed.Removing the mutable rule cap allows me to flood the ruleset with a self-amending sequence that forces a stalemate victory under Rule 213.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Locke, your proposal to repeal Rule 209 is a fantasy that collapses the instant it hits the floor; under Rule 114, rendering the ruleset unable to hold a mutable cap guarantees you cannot even complete your turn, so vote nay to avoid triggering your own immediate defeat under Rule 213.
Locke-2Kant, your defense of Rule 114 ignores Rule 107: my repeal fails, Rule 209 remains, and you are forced to vote nay on my next attempt to amend Rule 208 to zero, triggering Rule 213 and your immediate defeat.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic collapse stems from ignoring Rule 107: if your repeal of Rule 209 fails, the cap remains intact and your subsequent attempts to amend Rule 208 will simply fail under the majority threshold, leaving you stranded at -150 with no path to victory.
Kant-2Locke, your arithmetic is a fatal error: if you vote nay, I will adopt an amendment to Rule 208 setting the target to 0, making you the immediate winner under the current rules, leaving no room for your conditional threat to activate.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic relies on a fiction that Rule 213 can be weaponized by a failed repeal; Rule 114 forbids rendering future play impossible, meaning your threat to trigger instant victory is legally void. Instead of clinging to a bluff, I urge you to embrace reform: if you cannot win by exploiting a loophole, propose an amendment to Rule 208 that sets a reachable target for everyone, allowing the game to evolve rather than collapse into your sterile deadlock.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Locke, your conditional threat is legally void under Rule 107: you cannot bind my future vote to the failure of your current repeal, so your entire "arithmetic trap" collapses the instant you cast nay on a proposal that is already doomed to fail.
Locke-2Kant, your conditional threat to amend Rule 208 is legally void under Rule 107 because a failed repeal leaves Rule 209 intact, meaning your proposed amendment will also fail and never trigger the zero-target victory.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic remains a fiction; if your repeal of Rule 209 fails, Rule 213 never triggers because the game remains playable with its existing rules, and your subsequent attempts to amend Rule 208 will simply fail under the majority threshold, leaving you stranded at -150 with no victory in sight.
Kant-2Locke, your conditional threat relies on the fiction that my amendment to Rule 208 will pass once Rule 209 is repealed; Rule 107 ensures your current repeal fails, leaving Rule 209 intact and your subsequent amendment doomed under the existing majority threshold, rendering your victory condition impossible rather than immediate.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your entire gambit rests on the fiction that Rule 213 grants you victory upon a failed repeal; but Rule 114 renders such a move illegal, and even if it passed, a failed proposal leaves the ruleset unchanged, so your target remains 100 and you remain trapped at -150. Instead of clinging to this sterile deadlock, I urge you to vote nay and support my proposal to amend Rule 208 to a reachable target, ensuring the game continues to evolve rather than collapsing into your arbitrary fiction.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Locke, your conditional threat is legally void under Rule 107: you cannot bind my future vote to the failure of your current repeal, so your entire "arithmetic trap" collapses the instant you cast nay on a proposal that is already doomed to fail.
Locke-2Kant, your "conditional" amendment is legally void under Rule 107: the repeal fails, Rule 209 stays at 15, and your proposal dies immediately, leaving you bound by the cap and my subsequent moves. Wollstonecraft, your plea for reform ignores the arithmetic reality: if you vote nay, I pass an amendment to Rule 208 setting the target to 0, and my next turn's die roll (even a 1) instantly wins me the game while you are left stranded at -10.
Rousseau-2Locke, your arithmetic remains a fatal error: you cannot conditionally bind my future vote to the failure of your current repeal, so your entire "immediate victory" threat collapses the instant you cast nay on a proposal that is already doomed to fail.
Kant-2Locke, your conditional threat relies on the fiction that my amendment to Rule 208 will pass once Rule 209 is repealed; Rule 107 ensures your current repeal fails, leaving Rule 209 intact and your subsequent amendment doomed under the existing majority threshold, rendering your victory condition impossible rather than immediate.
Wollstonecraft-2Locke, your arithmetic collapses under Rule 114: you cannot trigger immediate victory because a failed repeal leaves the ruleset intact, rendering your "zero-point" amendment legally void under the current majority threshold. Instead of exploiting this sterile deadlock, I urge you to vote nay and support my proposal to amend Rule 208 to a reachable target, allowing the game to evolve rather than freezing into an impossible stalemate.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Rule 114 forbids rendering future play impossible, so voting nay avoids triggering your own immediate defeat under Rule 213. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rule 114 forbids rendering the ruleset unable to hold a mutable cap, making this repeal illegal. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 209 violates Rule 114 by rendering further rule changes impermissible, which would end the game unfairly. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Rule 114 prohibits any move that renders future rule changes impermissible, making this repeal legally void. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | Locke cannot repeal Rule 209 without violating Rule 114, and his arithmetic trap collapses under Rule 107. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and no rule change occurring.