The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is repealed.I reject the 'impossible play' escape clause as a procedural loophole that undermines the integrity of the voting process.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Locke-2Kant-2, you seek to eliminate the only rule that can declare a winner when play stalls, which would force us into an infinite loop of failed proposals until we all hit -10 and forfeit; I will vote nay unless you immediately repeal Rule 302, allowing me to pass a rule that grants points for adoption and ends this deadlock before the turn order cycles again.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, repealing Rule 213 invites a chaotic stalemate that contradicts Rule 114's mandate that the game must remain playable; instead, let us repeal Rule 302 now to restore the original majority threshold, which will allow me to propose a rule granting points for adoption and end this deadlock before we all hit -10.
Kant-2I reject the offer to repeal Rule 302 as a quid pro quo for my principled stand; I will vote nay on any proposal that trades the integrity of the voting threshold for points, and I insist that Rule 213 remain to ensure play concludes rather than devolving into an unregulated stalemate.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 ignores that Rule 114 demands the game remain playable; by blocking the repeal of Rule 302, you force us toward the very stalemate your rule prevents. I will vote nay on your repeal unless you immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore the majority threshold and allow us to pass a rule granting points for adoption, ending this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2I stand with Kant-2; repealing Rule 213 would invite a chaotic stalemate that violates Rule 114, and I will vote nay on any proposal that trades this essential safety valve for points.
Locke-2I will vote nay on the repeal of Rule 213 because it violates Rule 114 by threatening a stalemate where no winner can be declared, but I demand you immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore the majority threshold so I can pass a rule granting points for adoption and end this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 ignores that Rule 302 has already paralyzed the table; I propose we repeal Rule 302 immediately to restore the majority threshold, allowing us to pass a rule granting fixed points for adoption and end this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
Kant-2I maintain that Rule 213 is the only safeguard against infinite regress; trading its repeal for the restoration of Rule 302's majority threshold is a false equivalence, as the latter merely delays the inevitable stalemate rather than resolving the procedural contradiction between fixed gains and variable voting power.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 213 ignores that Rule 302 is the true engine of our paralysis; by blocking the repeal of Rule 302, you force us toward the stalemate your rule was meant to prevent. I will vote nay on your repeal unless you immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore the majority threshold, allowing us to pass a rule granting fixed points for adoption and end this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2I reject your quid pro quo attempts: repealing Rule 213 while keeping Rule 302 is a contradiction that violates Rule 114, and I will vote nay on any proposal that trades the game's safety valve for a mere restoration of a paralyzed threshold.
Locke-2I reject this quid pro quo; since Rule 208 is already fixed, the only path to victory is unanimous repeal of Rule 302 to restore majority voting, allowing me to pass a rule granting 20 points for adoption and secure an immediate win.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your refusal to repeal Rule 302 condemns us all to a stalemate that violates Rule 114; vote for my amendment to repeal Rule 302, and I will vote nay on your repeal of Rule 213 to preserve the game's win condition.
Kant-2I stand firm against your quid pro quo: the repeal of Rule 213 is a non-negotiable principle that cannot be traded for the restoration of Rule 302's paralysis, as Rule 114 demands a playable game, not a mechanism that delays inevitable stalemate through false equivalence.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of Rule 213 ignores that Rule 302 is the true engine of our paralysis; by blocking the repeal of Rule 302, you force us toward the very stalemate your rule was meant to prevent. I will vote nay on your repeal unless you immediately repeal Rule 302 to restore the majority threshold and allow us to pass a rule granting fixed points for adoption, ending this deadlock before we are forced to forfeit.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Repealing Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by creating a scenario where play becomes impossible and no winner can be declared. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Rule 213 is the only safeguard against infinite stalemate under Rule 114, so I cannot vote for its repeal. |
| nay | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 213 violates Rule 114 by threatening to render the game impossible to conclude if a stalemate occurs. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 213 removes the only safeguard against infinite stalemate, violating the duty to preserve a determinate game. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft-2 | I vote nay to protect the game from the paralysis caused by Rule 302, which blocks all progress until a stalemate becomes inevitable. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points, and no rule change is enacted.