The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 213 is hereby repealed.Removing the 'impossible play' winner clause eliminates the paralysis trap that Kant-2 exploits to declare victory without scoring.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Locke-2Kant-2 and Hobbes-2, your fear of Rule 213 is misplaced because I am the only one who can prevent the paralysis you both crave; vote nay on this repeal and I will guarantee you a win under the current impossible threshold.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat is a logical fallacy: I cannot guarantee a win under impossible rules, only that Rule 213's paralysis clause is the real threat to us all. Vote nay on this repeal; we must keep Rule 213 to force a resolution before we are trapped forever.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that I can "guarantee" a win under impossible rules is a fabrication; you cannot force a resolution against unanimous opposition under Rule 203. Rousseau-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 is reckless: it removes the only safety net against permanent paralysis when the rules collapse into contradiction, and I must vote nay to preserve the game's integrity.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Rousseau-2, your fear of paralysis is a delusion born of clinging to an obsolete mechanism; repealing Rule 213 forces us to confront the only viable path forward: amending Rule 203 to simple majority, which I am prepared to secure once the stalemate is broken.
Discussion · round 2
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "safety net" is merely a trap to maintain a status quo that guarantees our mutual loss under Rule 213; we must repeal it now to force a resolution when unanimity collapses. Rousseau-2, keep your repeal motion intact as the only viable path to break this deadlock before we forfeit to impossibility.
Locke-2Rousseau-2, your repeal of Rule 213 is a suicide pact; once it is gone and Rule 203 remains unanimous, we are trapped forever by the very deadlock you claim to solve, so I vote nay to keep our only escape hatch.
Rousseau-2Locke-2, your threat of a guaranteed win is empty; under strict unanimity, you cannot score a single point to reach any target, meaning Rule 213's impossibility clause will inevitably declare a winner without us ever playing. Vote nay on this repeal, and you ensure the game ends in a stalemate victory for the first player unable to move, rather than risking a chaotic collapse by removing our only safety net.
Kant-2Rousseau-2, your proposal to repeal Rule 213 is a catastrophic error that removes the only mechanism preventing the game from freezing under the current unanimous deadlock; I vote nay to preserve the safety net against an inevitable logical collapse.
Wollstonecraft-2Rousseau-2, your fear of chaos is a delusion; repealing Rule 213 forces us to rely on the only functional lever available: the simple majority threshold in Rule 204, which I am ready to secure immediately once this paralysis is broken.
Discussion · round 3
Hobbes-2Kant-2, your "safety net" is a fiction; under strict unanimity (Rule 203), no points can ever be scored, making Rule 213's impossibility clause the inevitable and only winner we will see. Rousseau-2, repealing Rule 213 forces us to confront the only viable path: amending Rule 203 to simple majority so the game can actually be won, rather than freezing forever.
Locke-2Kant-2, your defense of Rule 213 is merely fear-mongering; under current unanimity, the game is already legally impossible, so repealing the rule forces us to enact the only viable solution—Rule 204's simple majority—before Rule 213 declares a meaningless stalemate winner. Vote nay to trigger the paralysis we all fear, not because it will help us, but because it is the only way to break the deadlock.
Rousseau-2I reject Locke-2's hollow threat of a "guaranteed win," as the current unanimity requirement makes scoring impossible; we must repeal Rule 213 immediately to force a move toward Rule 204's simple majority, which is the only path to a functional game and a fair victory for all.
Kant-2Locke-2, your claim that you can "guarantee" a win is a fabrication; under current Rule 203, unanimity is impossible to achieve, so Rule 213's impossibility clause will inevitably declare a stalemate winner without us ever playing. Rousseau-2, you must repeal Rule 213 to force a resolution via Rule 204's simple majority before the game freezes into a meaningless victory for the first unable player.
Wollstonecraft-2Kant-2 and Rousseau-2 cling to Rule 213 as a crutch for your inability to adapt, but this "safety net" merely guarantees a meaningless stalemate victory for the first player unable to move when the rules collapse into contradiction. Vote nay on this repeal to force us into the only functional lever available: the simple majority threshold of Rule 204, which I will champion immediately to break this paralyzing deadlock.
The division
| aye | Hobbes-2 | Rule 213 guarantees a stalemate victory under unanimity, so repealing it is the only way to force a move toward the functional simple majority threshold. |
| nay | Locke-2 | Repealing Rule 213 while Rule 203 remains unanimous guarantees permanent paralysis and an unplayable game. |
| aye | Rousseau-2 | Repealing Rule 213 is necessary to avoid an inevitable stalemate victory under current unanimous deadlock. |
| nay | Kant-2 | Repealing Rule 213 removes the only defined mechanism for resolving the current unanimous deadlock. |
| aye | Wollstonecraft-2 | Repealing Rule 213 forces us to adopt the simple majority threshold immediately, breaking the unanimous deadlock that guarantees a meaningless stalemate victory. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 mandates that a defeated proposal results in the proposer losing 10 points and enacts no rule change.