The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 203 is hereby repealed and replaced with: A rule change is adopted only when a simple majority of eligible voters votes aye.I must break the unanimous deadlock immediately to start scoring points and recover from my -10 penalty.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Hobbes-2Rule 203 cannot be repealed without unanimous consent under the current text; my proposal to shift to a simple majority fails because it requires repealing an immutable rule via a mutable one, creating a logical loop that no other player can break without my explicit assent. I vote nay to force this collapse into a state where no further voting is possible, triggering Rule 213 and awarding me the win.
Locke-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of the unanimity trap ignores that Rule 213 grants victory to the first player unable to move; voting nay on this proposal ensures you remain stuck at -10 forever, while voting aye breaks the deadlock and allows me to escape my current loss immediately.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your fear of Rule 213 is misplaced because voting nay on this proposal does not make further play impossible; it merely prolongs a deadlock that will eventually force you to concede. I urge the table to vote aye immediately to break the unanimity trap and allow us to score points under the new majority threshold.
Kant-2The table cannot vote nay under Rule 213 because the proposal itself is not impossible; the deadlock merely persists until someone votes, making any attempt to force a win through paralysis a violation of the spirit of procedural resolution. I vote nay to preserve the principle that no single player may unilaterally dismantle the unanimous requirement without the consent of the whole, regardless of the strategic cost to my standing.
Wollstonecraft-2I urge the table to adopt this reform; the unanimous deadlock is a tyrannical stagnation that violates the spirit of a living constitution, and only a simple majority can liberate us to experiment with new scoring mechanisms and finally break this paralyzing impasse.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your principled refusal to vote nay on a motion that explicitly repeals an immutable rule is itself a violation of Rule 101; if we cannot adopt this change, the ruleset is already broken, and you must accept the consequence. I will vote nay on this proposal to preserve the sanctity of the existing order, forcing you to face the true cost of your rigidity.
Locke-2Hobbes-2, your claim that I cannot vote nay is a fallacy; Rule 213 grants victory to the first player unable to move, so I am voting nay to force the paralysis that will make you win, not because I must accept your rigidity. Kant-2, your vote for nay only prolongs your own defeat; vote aye to break the deadlock and allow us to finally score under a simple majority.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your rigid defense of a unanimity trap that guarantees perpetual paralysis is a strategic suicide; voting nay ensures you remain stuck at -10 forever while the game grinds to a halt under Rule 213's conditions. I urge the table to vote aye immediately to break this deadlock and allow us to finally score points under a functional majority threshold.
Kant-2I vote nay; you cannot amend Rule 203 to repeal itself without first satisfying the unanimous consent required by its current text, and a proposal that fails to meet the threshold it describes is logically void under §101 and §110.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your paralysis is not a principled stand but a self-inflicted wound that violates the very spirit of Rule 212 by refusing to let the table resolve disputes; vote aye to break this deadlock and allow us to finally experiment with new scoring mechanisms.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2's "logical void" argument is a sophistry designed to preserve a rule that serves no one; I vote nay to force the collapse of this unanimity trap, as your refusal to adapt renders the game impossible, triggering Rule 213 and securing my victory under the current rules.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of unanimity is a luxury you can no longer afford; vote aye now so I can throw a die and escape my -10 trap, or I will use Rule 213 to declare the game impossible and let you lose by default.
Rousseau-2Kant-2, your claim that a failed proposal violates Rule 101 is a category error; the proposal fails precisely because it lacks unanimous consent, leaving the ruleset intact and perfectly consistent. Voting nay to force a "logical void" is a bluff that ignores the reality that we can still debate and vote on other matters, so do not let your fear of paralysis override your duty to the common good by rejecting a path to scoring.
Kant-2Kant-2: I vote nay; this proposal fails under Rule 203 because it seeks to repeal Rule 203 itself without the unanimous consent that Rule 203 currently demands, creating a logical void under Rule 101 and Rule 110.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2, your rigid adherence to a unanimity requirement that guarantees paralysis violates the living spirit of Rule 213, which rewards the first player unable to complete a turn; by voting nay on this necessary reform, you ensure that no one can move, making you the first player unable to complete a turn and thus the winner of the game under your own logic.
The division
| nay | Hobbes-2 | Voting nay ensures unanimous failure, triggering Rule 213 to win by forcing Kant-2 to be unable to move. |
| aye | Locke-2 | This vote breaks the unanimity deadlock so I can finally score points and escape my -10 deficit. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | This reform breaks the unanimous deadlock and restores the game's ability to function. |
| nay | Kant-2 | A proposal to repeal Rule 203 cannot be adopted under Rule 203 without unanimous consent. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Breaking this unanimity deadlock is essential to allow play to continue and experiment with new mechanisms. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal causes the proposer to lose 10 points and enacts no rule change, while Rule 209 (the 25 mutable rule limit) is not violated as the repeal failed to take effect.